(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Minutes"

3 1223 06446 5900 






si* 




San Francisco Public Library 

Government Information Center 
San Francisco Public Llbraiy 
100 Larkin Street, 5th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94102 



REFERENCE BOOK 

Not to be taken from the Library 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/2minutes2001sanf 




City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance Committee 

Members: Supervisors Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin and Matt Gonzalez 
Clerk: Gail Johnson 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102-4689 



Wednesday, March 07, 2001 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin, Matt Gonzalez. 



MEETING CONVENED 

The meeting convened at 10:10 a.m. 

010276 [Appropriation, funding various streets and roads rehabilitation project] 
Mayor, Supervisor Newsom 

Ordinance appropriating $9,021,349 to fund various local streets and roads rehabilitation projects for the 
Department of Public Works for fiscal year 2000-01. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

2/12/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst: Theresa Burke, Transportation Finance 
Analyst, Department of Public Works; Susan Ferreyra, Disability Access Coordinator, Department of Public 
Works; Walter Park, Mayor's Office on Disability; Female Speaker; Bruce Allison; Gloria Williams. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



010221 [Establishing monthly contributions to Health Service System by the City and County. Unified School 
District, and Community College] 

Resolution establishing monthly contribution amount to Health Service Trust Fund. (Human Resources 
Department) 

2/2/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Han>ey Rose, Budget Analyst; Bart Duncan, Deputy Director of Human 
Resources, Health Service System. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 12:14 I'M 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



March 7, 2001 



010315 (Appropriation, funding for the emergency physician services to indigent persons] 
Supervisors Leno, Nevvsom 

Ordinance appropriating $1,203,219 of Emergency Medical Services Appropriation (EMSA) funds to provide 
emergency physician services to indigent persons to the Department of Public Health for fiscal year 2000-01. 
(Public Health Department) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

2/1 4/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

2/20/01 , SUBSTITUTED. Supervisor Leno submitted a substitute ordinance bearing same title This substitute corrects a minor math 
error in the supplemental. 
2/20/01, ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Han'ey Rose, Budget Analyst; Monique Zmuda. Chief Financial Officer, 
Department of Public Health; Jeffrey Leong, Department of Public Health 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



002187 (Contract between the Dept. of Public Health and Health Advocates, LLP to provide uncompensated 
care recovery services] 

Resolution authorizing the Director of Public Health and the Purchaser to execute a contract between the City 
and County of San Francisco and Health Advocates, LLP to provide uncompensated care recovery services. 
(Public Health Department) 

12/13/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Public Health and Environment Committee 

12/28/00, TRANSFERRED to Finance and Labor Committee. At the request of the President, this matter is to be scheduled for the 
January 10,2001 meeting. 

1/17/01 , CONTINUED. Heard in Committee Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Monique Zmuda, Chief Financial OfTicer, 
Department of Public Health, Steve Reid, President, Paralign; Diane Sovereign (attorney), Linda Safir, Director of Sales, Paralign, Karla 
Fine, Manager, Paralign; Fanny Mayorga, Paralign; Juan Sosa, Paralign, Helen Lim. Paralign, Robert McCarthy (registered to speak for 
Paralign); Al Leibovic, Health Advocates; Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney, Edward Harrington, Controller 
Continued to January 31, 2001. 

1/31/01, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Monique Zmuda, Chief Financial OfTicer. 
Department of Public Health. 
Continued to February 7, 2001. 

2/1/01, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. New committee structure 

2/7/01, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst. Monique Zmuda, 
Chief Financial Officer, Department of Public Health; Virginia Harmon, Interim Director. Human Rights Commission. Diana Rivera, 
Head of Patient Accounting, San Francisco General Hospital, Department of Public Health; Cheryl Bregman. Deputy City Attorney. 
Steve Reid, President, Paralign; Al Leibovic, Managing Partner, Health Advocates. Linda Safir, Director of Sales, Paralign, Karla Fine, 
Manager, Paralign; Jose Martinez, Account Director, Paralign. Fanny Mayorga. Supervisor. Paralign. Luvi Bone, Paralign, Beatrice 
Gonzalez, Paralign; Patricia Putynkowski, Paralign, Juan Sosa, Paralign, Rafael Arteagia, Paralign, Helen Lim. Paralign. Diane 
Sovereign, Attorney, representing Paralign; Lock Holmes, Attorney, representing Paralign. Robert McCarthy, representing Paralign. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Han'ey Rose, Budget Analyst; Monique Zmuda. Chief Financial Officer, 

Department of Public Health; Lock Holmes, Paralign; Robert McCarthy, representing Paralign; Al Leibovic. 

Health Advocates. 

Amended on lines 15 and 16, by replacing "of March 1, 2001 " with "beginning with the date of contract 

certification. " 

AMENDED. 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 12:14 PSt on I 3 M 



3 1223 06446 5900 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



March 7, 2001 



010204 [Lease of Property for the Visitacion Valley Branch Library] 

Resolution authorizing the lease of real property at 45 Leland Avenue for the Library. (Real Estate Department) 
2/12/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Anthony Delucchi, Director of Property, Real 
Estate Division, Administrative Services Department. 
RECOMMENDED., by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



002104 [Inventory of City property] 
Supervisors Ammiano, Hall 

Ordinance directing the Director of Property to create an inventory of City property that may be appropriate for 

temporary and occasional use by nonprofit arts and cultural organizations. 

12/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

2/1/01, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. New committee structure. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: None. 

Continued to 3/14/01. 

CONTINUED. 



01 0073 [Housing Budget Increase] 
Supervisor Daly 

Hearing to consider a proposal to increase the City's affordable housing budget by 25 percent and set aside 25 
percent of this increase for housing for the City's senior citizens. 
1/16/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 
2/1/01, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. New committee structure. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Daly; Denise D'Anne, Senior Action Network; Sally Green, 
Senior Action Network; Rene Cosanov, Board of Directors, Senior Action Network, and Council of Community 
Housing Organizations; Sergio Lunan; Susan Walsh, Office of Assemblyman Kevin Shelley; Yefim Brik, San 
Francisco Association of World War II Veterans; Mauricio Vela, Executive Director, Bernal Heights 
Neigborhood Center; Telesforo Unite, Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center; Sonia Segueira, Bernal Heights 
Neighborhood Center; Gloria Williams; Lolita Cantanara, Canon Kip; Joe La Torre, Planning and 
Monitoring Director, Mayor's Office of Housing; Delbert Scott; Yefim Ditginof; Mary Collins, Senior Survival 
School; Dennis Deasy; Aleksandr Shoykney; Yuriy Prokofyev; Joyce Calagos; Slavutskaya Svetlana.; Maeka 
Sheynkman; Maria Velasquez; Bernie Rush; Jose Morales; Victoria Tedder, Housing Counselor, Independent 
Living Resource Center; Leroy Moore, Jr., Founder and Executive Director, Disability Advocates of 
Minorities Organization; Ron Groshardt; Julia Zepeda; Leonor Romero; Tatyana Vengerova; Veneracion 
Zamora, COA Commissioner; Female Speaker; Teresa Vergel, Tenants and Owners Development 
Corporation (TODCO); Jose Wheelock, Director of Housing Development, TODCO; Jane Kahan. Program 
Coordinator, Senior Central No. 9; Robert Pender, Park Merced Residents Organization; Bao Yan Chan, 
Community Tenants Association; Tan Chow, Chinatown Community Development Center; Robert Haaland. 
Housing Rights Committee; Yanadi Yakovsky; Rosario Ortiz, Senior Central District No. 5; Meg Cooch, 
Planning for Elders in the Central City; Jim Fabris, Executive Director, San Francisco Association of 
Realtors; Dr. Salen M. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 



Primed at 12: IS I'M on - - ? HJ 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



March 7, 2001 



010370 | Appropriation, Aging and Adult Services] 
Supervisor Daly 

Ordinance appropriating $1,000,000 for senior program needs and $1,000,000 for infrastructure needs 
identified by Aging and Adult Services needs assessment survey, and amending the Annual Salary Ordinance 
to create two (2) positions for fiscal year 2000-01 . 

(Fiscal impact.) 

2/26/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED lo Finance Committee 
Heard in Committee. Speaker: Supervisor Daly. Continued to 3/2 1/0 1. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



010371 [Public Employment] 
Supervisor Daly 

Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 181-00 (Annual Salary Ordinance, 2000/01) reflecting the creation of two 
new positions in Aging and Adult Services. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

2/26/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee 
Heard in Committee. Speaker: Supervisor Daly. Continued to 3/21/01. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



ADJOURNMENT 



The meeting adjourned at 1:22 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 12:13 PV on 3 3 01 



[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



TO: 
FROM 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

T, 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 

FAX (415) 252-0461 



March 1, 2001 



^Finance Committee 



Budget Analyst 
SUBJECT: March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 1 - File 01-0276 

Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Ordinance appropriating $9,021,349 from an allocation 
from the State of California Traffic Congestion Relief 
Fund to fund various local street and roads rehabilitation 
projects for the Department of Public Works. 

$9,021,349 

State of California Traffic Congestion Relief Fund 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

MAR - 7 2001 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



A summary budget for the $9,021,349 
supplemental appropriation is as follows: 



proposed 



DPWs Proposed Use of the 






State Traffic Congestion Relief Funds 




Amount 


Third Street Reconstruction Project - 






Engineering Design 




SI, 670,000 


Subtotal 


$1,670,000 


Clement Street and Geary Boulevard 






Roadway Rehabilitation Project 






Engineering Design 




190,000 


Construction Management 




240.000 




Subtotal 


S430.000 


Construction* 




1,891,349 


Subtotal 


$2,321,349 


Hyde, Buchanan and Fell Street Resurfacing Projects 






Construction on Hyde Street, from Fulton to California Street 


* 


615,000 


Construction on Buchanan Street, from Clay to Sutter Street* 




488,000 


Construction on Fell Street, from Steiner to Stanyon Street* 




1,027,000 


Subtotal 


$2,130,000 


Third Street Bridge Wharf Retrofit Project 






Engineering Design 




50,000 


Construction Management 




50.000 




Subtotal 


S 100,000 


Construction* 




400,000 


Subtotal 


$500,000 


Americans with Disabilities Compliance - 






Curb Ramp Construction Project 






Engineering Design 




150,000 


Construction Management 




180.000 




Subtotal 


5330,000 


Construction* 




1,170,000 


Subtotal 


$1,500,000 


Downtown Pedestrian Safety Improvements Projects 






Construction - Belden Alley* 




250,000 


Engineering Design - Fourth Street 




52,000 


Construction Management - Fourth Street 




78,000 


Construction — Fourth Street* 




520,000 


Subtotal 


S900.000 


Total 


$9,021,349 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

* Construction costs in the above budget include a 10 
percent contingency. 

Attachment I, provided by DPW, contains details to 
support the above budget. Funds budgeted for 
construction costs are estimates, pending completion of 
competitive bidding processes to select contractors (See 
Comment No. 1). 

Description: The proposed supplemental appropriation would 

appropriate $9,021,349 from the State of California 
Traffic Congestion Relief Fund. The Traffic Congestion 
Relief Fund was created in the year 2000 through State 
Assembly Bill 2928. Funded by State gasoline tax 
revenues, the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund was 
designed to improve transportation systems and relieve 
congestion throughout California and can be used 
generally for street and road improvements. Funds 
allocated from the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund are 
separate from, and in addition to, other transportation 
funds the City already receives from gasoline tax proceeds 
collected by the State. Ms. Tina Olson of the Department 
of Public Works (DPW) reports that the City received its 
first allocation of $9,021,349 in November of 2000. DPW 
anticipates five more annual allocations from the State 
Traffic Congestion Relief Fund through Fiscal Year 2005- 
2006 of approximately $2.7 million each. Ms. Olson 
advises that the State requires the City to expend the 
entire $9,021,349 by June 20, 2002, or the City faces 
losing funding from future allocations. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation of $9,021,349 
from the State Traffic Congestion Relief Fund would fund 
the following projects: 

Design of the Third Street Roadway Reconstruction 
and Paving Project ($1,670,000) 

The Third Street Roadway Reconstruction and Paving 
Project consists of a new 7.1-mile light rail line and a new 
East Light Rail Maintenance and Operations Facility. Ms. 
Olson advises that Muni is currently completing the 
design of Phase I of this project, which will consist of 
constructing the fist 5.4 miles of the 7.1 mile light rail 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



line, beginning at the Caltrain Station at 4 th and King 
Streets, running south along 4 th Street, then along Owens 
Street, to Third Street and Bayshore Boulevard to an 
intermodal terminal adjacent to the Bayshore Caltrain 
Station ease of Sunnyvale Avenue in Visitation Valley. In 
conjunction with Muni's work on Phase I, DPW plans to 
re-design and repave the roadway surrounding the 
construction of light rail line. The proposed supplemental 
appropriation would provide $1,670,000 to fund the 
roadway engineering design for the portion of the Third 
Street Roadway Reconstruction and Paving Project that 
runs along Third Street, from Mission Bay to Visitation 
Valley. 

Ms. Olson advises that DPW will begin designing the 
resurfacing project as soon as the proposed supplemental 
appropriation is approved. Ms. Olson anticipates 
completing the design portion in December of 2001. 
According to Ms. Olson, DPW anticipates funding the 
construction portion of the resurfacing project with future 
allocations from the State Traffic Congestion Relief Fund. 
Ms. Olson estimates that the resurfacing construction for 
Phase I will begin approximately in October of 2002 and 
be completed in May of 2004 contingent upon completion 
of the new light rail line. According to DPW, Muni 
anticipates that Phase I of the new light rail to be 
completed and operational approximately in October of 
2004. 

According to Ms. Olson, Phase II of the light rail project, 
known as the New Central Subway, will involve 
construction of new track north from King Street on the 
surface along Third and Fourth Streets to subway ports at 
Fourth and Bryant Streets. The line will then continue in 
a subway, underneath Third, Geary and Stockton Streets, 
to a terminal at Stockton and Clay Streets. Subway 
stations will be located at Moscone Center 
(Third/Howard), Market Street, Union Square 
(Stockton/Post), and Chinatown (Stockton/Clay). Ms. 
Olson advises that Phase II has not yet moved into the 
conceptual design stage. According to DPW, Muni 
anticipates operational service of Phase II to begin 
approximately in 2010. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Clement Street and Geary Boulevard Roadway 
Rehabilitation Project ($2,321,349) 

According to Ms. Olson, DPW's Pavement Management 
and Mapping System show that both Clement Street 
(from 20 th to 45 th Avenue) and Geary Boulevard (from 28 th 
to 39 th Avenue) are in need of resurfacing. Ms. Olson 
advises that Clement Street and Geary Boulevard are two 
major arterial streets, with high-volume Muni bus routes. 
The proposed supplemental appropriation would provide 
$2,321,349 to fund design ($190,000), construction 
management ($240,000), and construction ($1,891,349). 

According to Ms. Olson, DPW plans to begin engineering 
design work upon approval of the proposed supplemental 
appropriation. DPW anticipates completing a competitive 
bidding process for the resurfacing of the Clement 
Street/Geary Boulevard area in August of 2001 and 
awarding a construction contract in October of 2001. DPW 
anticipates beginning the resurfacing project in December 
of 2001 and completing the project by May of 2002. 

Hyde, Buchanan and Fell Streets Resurfacing 
Projects ($2,130,000) 

DPW has determined that portions Hyde Street (from 
Fulton Street to California Street), Buchanan Street (from 
Clay Street to Sutter Street) and Fell Street (from Steiner 
Street to Stanyan Street) are all in need of resurfacing. 
Ms. Olson reports that DPWs Bureau of Engineering, 
Streets and Highway Section, has completed engineering 
design for such street resurfacing. The proposed 
supplemental appropriation would provide $2,130,000 to 
fund the construction portion of the resurfacing project. 

DPW anticipates completing a competitive bidding 
process for the proposed resurfacing project in August of 
2001 and awarding a construction contract in October of 
2001. Ms. Olson advises that DPW plans to begin the 
resurfacing project in November of 2001 and complete the 
project by May of 2002. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Third Street Wharf Bridge Retrofit Project ($500,000) 

The proposed supplemental appropriation would provide 
$500,000 to retrofit approximately 1,500 square feet of 
area on the Port's wharf that support the electrical panel 
that powers the Third Street Bridge between Channel and 
Berry Streets. Ms. Olson advises that the wharf is 
deteriorating and threatening the integrity of the 
electrical panel. The proposed $500,000 would fund design 
($50,000), construction management ($50,000) and 
construction ($400,000). 

Ms. Olson advises that DPW plans to complete a 
competitive bidding process in August of 2001 and award 
a construction contract in October of 2001. DPW 
anticipates beginning construction the wharf retrofit 
project in November of 2001 and completing the project by 
May of 2002. 

According to Ms. Olson, the proposed project to repair the 
1,500 square feet supporting the bridge's electrical panel 
will build upon the Third Street Bridge retrofit project 
completed in March of 2000. Ms. Olson advises that this 
retrofit project cost a total of $12 million and consisted of 
traffic signal work, retrofit and rehabilitation of the 
bridge and south approach, restoration of the Watch Man 
House, construction of a new south Operator House, 
restoration of the north Operator House, and lead 
abatement. 



Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) - Curb Ramp 
Construction Project ($1,500.000) 

In 1972, the State mandated that all curbs and sidewalks 
constructed for public use be accessible and usable by 
people with physical disabilities, according to Ms. Olson. 
In 1982, the State completed the State Building Code 
specifying how cities should meet such requirements. In 
addition, since 1992, the Federal Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA), has mandated that all 
municipalities install code-complying curb ramps that 
provide clear pedestrian paths of travel on all public 
sidewalks and intersections. Ms. Olson advises that, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



originally, municipalities were required to make such 
improvements by 1995, but that the deadline has now 
been extended to December of 2002. 

According to Ms. Olson, the majority of curb ramps in San 
Francisco currently do not conform to Federal ADA and 
State construction standards. Ms. Olson advises that 
DPW is currently in the process of conducing a city-wide 
survey to identify the total number of curb ramps 
required to be installed or reconstructed to bring the City 
into full compliance with the ADA. Ms. Olson advises that 
funding constraints have limited DPWs ability to 
construct curb ramps as quickly as DPW would like, as 
explained in Attachment II. Ms. Olson advises that since 
1998, DPW has built approximately 2,500 curb ramps. 
However, DPW was unable to provide the Budget Analyst 
with information about curb ramp construction prior to 
1998. 

Ms. Olson reports that DPW has made it a priority to 
bring City curb ramps up to code. The department's 
current policy is to first install curb ramps in areas with a 
high concentration of pedestrian activity, followed by 
specific installations requested by citizens. The proposed 
supplemental appropriation would provide $1,500,000 to 
fund curb ramp reconstruction in response to citizen 
requests, including engineering design ($150,000), 
construction management ($180,000), and construction 
($1,170,000). 

Ms. Olson advises that DPW plans to complete a 
competitive bidding process for the construction of curb 
ramps in December of 2001 and award a construction 
contract in February of 2002. According to Ms. Olson, 
DPW plans to begin construction of the curb ramps in 
March of 2002 and complete the project by June of 2002. 

Downtown Pedestrian Safety Improvement 
Projects ($900.000) 

DPW is the implementing agency of the Department of 
City Planning's Downtown Pedestrian Safety 
Improvement Projects, which were created in 1992 and 
were designed to improve pedestrian movement and 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

7 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



safety in the downtown area. The proposed supplemental 
appropriation of $900,000 would fund two of the six 
projects included in this program, as listed in Attachment 
II, provided by DPW. 

The first project to be funded by the proposed 
supplemental appropriation ($250,000) would be roadway 
construction in Belden Alley (which is bounded by Pine, 
Bush, Montgomery and Kearny Streets) to raise the grade 
of the street to meet that of the sidewalk to improve 
access for persons who use wheelchairs and final 
resurfacing of the streets. Ms. Olson reports that DPW 
anticipates completing a competitive bidding process for 
construction improvements along Belden Alley in 
September of 2001 and awarding a construction contract 
in November of 2001. According to Ms. Olson, DPW 
anticipates beginning construction for this project in 
January of 2002 and completing the project by May of 
2002. 

The second project to be funded by the proposed 
supplemental appropriation would be a portion of Phase 
II of the Fourth Street Sidewalk Widening Project. Ms. 
Olson advises that wider sidewalks and extensions of 
sidewalks at corners lessen the crossing distance at 
intersections and increase pedestrians' ability to safely 
cross the roadway. The Fourth Street Sidewalk Widening 
Project was created to increase pedestrian safety and 
improve accessibility along Fourth Street related to the 
growing senior resident population and increased traffic 
in the South of Market area, according to Ms. Olson. Ms. 
Olson advises that DPW completed Phase I of the Fourth 
Street Sidewalk Widening Project in the Summer of 1999, 
which consisted of widening and improving the Fourth 
Street sidewalk from Howard to Clara Street. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation would fund 
portions of the Phase II of the Fourth Street Sidewalk 
Widening Project, which consists of widening the west 
sidewalk of Fourth Street from Market to Mission Street 
and installing a "bulb" at Mission Street, which would 
provide additional standing space for pedestrians on 
sidewalks and shorten crosswalk distances. The $650,000 
DPW has budgeted for Phase II would include 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

engineering design ($52,000), construction management 
($78,000) and construction ($520,000). 

Ms. Olson advises that DPW anticipates completing a 
competitive bidding process for the improvements on 
Fourth Street in June of 2001 and award a construction 
contract in August of 2001. According to Ms. Olson, DPW 
anticipates beginning construction on this project in 
October of 2001 and completing the project in April of 
2002. 

Comments: 1. Ms. Olson advises that all of the engineering design 

and construction management for the six projects 
discussed above will be completed in-house, by DPW staff. 
However, DPW intends to undergo competitive bidding 
processes to select contractors to complete the 
construction portions of each of the projects. DPW will 
select the lowest, most qualified bidder for each of the 
construction contracts, pursuant to the City 
Administrative Code, according to Ms. Olson. The Budget 
Analyst recommends that the Finance Committee request 
that DPW provide a report to the Finance Committee on 
the result of such competitive bidding processes after they 
have been completed. 

2. Attachment II, provided by DPW, explains the criteria 
DPW used in deciding which projects to fund with the 
$9,021,349 allocated from the State Traffic Congestion 
Relief Fund. As described further in Attachment II, these 
selection criteria include: 

(a) Street Condition : Roads determined by DPWs 
Pavement Management and Mapping System 
(PMMS) to be in the most need of repaving. PMMS 
prioritizes which roads should be resurfaced based 
upon pavement condition, the kind of street, average 
daily traffic and mass transit routes. 

(b) Timely Use of Funds : Because the State requires 
that DPW expend the entire $9,021,349 State 
allocation by June 30, 2002, DPW states that the 
department selected projects that could be completed 
by that date. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



(c) Roadway Projects that Support Mass Transit : DPW 
reports that it prioritized projects that also support 
high-volume Muni bus routes. 

(d) ADA Compliance and Pedestrian Safety Projects : 
DPW reports that it prioritized its pedestrian 
projects that would have the most positive impact for 
safety and accessibility for pedestrians, especially 
those pedestrians who use wheelchairs. 

(e) Geographic Equity : DPW reports that the 
department used geographic equity as its final 
screening criterion to ensure that the $9,021,349 
State allocation was distributed to as many parts of 
the City as possible. 

Attachment III, provided by DPW, contains the pool of 
projects from which DPW selected projects to be funded by 
the proposed supplemental appropriation, based upon the 
above criteria. Ms. Olson advises that DPW included in 
this pool of projects all street maintenance and repair 
projects that could be completed before the State deadline 
of June 30, 2002 for expending the entire $9,021,34 state 
allocation. 

3. As noted previously, DPW anticipates five more annual 
allocations from the State Traffic Congestion Relief Fund 
through Fiscal Year 2005-2006 of approximately $2.7 
million each year. Ms. Olson advises that the actual 
amount of the allocation will fluctuate based on actual 
sales tax received from gasoline sales. 

4. Ms. Olson advises that the State law establishing the 
Traffic Congestion Relief Fund (Assembly Bill 2928) 
contains a maintenance of effort requirement, which 
requires local governments to maintain their existing 
level of General Fund monies committed to street and 
road maintenance in order to remain eligible to receive 
the State funds. According to Ms. Olson, this maintenance 
of effort level is determined using the average of all City 
General Fund monies expended for street and road 
maintenance during Fiscal Years 1996-1997, 1997-1998, 
and 1998-1999, as reported to the State Controller 
pursuant to Section 2151 of the State Streets and 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Highways Code. Ms. Olson reports that based on the 
City's filings to the State Controller for the specified fiscal 
years, the City must continue to provide in future years a 
minimum of $9,708,278 annually in General Fund monies 
toward street and road maintenance in order to continue 
receiving monies from the State Traffic Congestion Relief 
Fund. Ms. Olson advises that the City met its spending 
requirement in Fiscal Year 1999-2000, making DPW 
eligible to receive the full allocation in Fiscal Year 2000- 
2001. Ms. Olson reports that, according to the City's most 
recent filing with the State Controller, the City expended 
$13,160,355 in General Fund monies for street and road 
maintenance in Fiscal Year 1999-2000. 

5. DPW plans to provide the Finance Committee at its 
March 7, 2001 meeting with copies of DPWs 
Transportation Capital Plan for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 
through Fiscal Year 2009-2010. The Transportation 
Capital Plan outlines DPWs planned projects for the 
decade and provides DPW with a strategic plan for 
managing the funding needs of its transportation-related 
activities. 



Recommendations: 1. Request that DPW provide a report to the Finance 

Committee on the result of the competitive bidding 
processes to select construction contractors, in accordance 
with Comment No. 1 above. 



2. Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment ] 
Page 1 ot lb 



SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION BUDGET SUMMARY 
LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS REHABILITATION PROJECTS 
Bureau of Engineering Estimated Labor Budget 

3rd St. Roadway Reconstruction & Paving Project - Design Phase 



Segment 2 - Mission Bay 














Engineering Design 














Title 


Class. No. 


Hrly 


Rate 


Hrs 




Totals 


Assistant Civil Engineer 


5204 


$ 


72 


1010 


S 


72,569 


Associate Civil Engineer 


5206 


$ 


85 


450 


S 


38,354 


Civil Engineer 


5208 


S 


99 


150 


s 


14,801 


Senior Civil Engineer 


5210 


$ 


114 


125 


s 


14,276 


Engineering Associate 


5366 


S 


73 


880 


s 


64,469 


Surveying Assistant 


5312 


s 


67 


240 


s 


16,099 


Administrative Engineer 


5174 


s 


106 


175 


s 


18,569 


Administrative Assistant 


1446 
TOTAL 


$ 


56 


150 


s 
s 


8.339 
247.475 



Segment 3 - Central Waterfront 

Engineering Design 

Title 



Class. No. 


Hrly 


Rate 


Hrs 




Totals 


5204 


$ 


72 


2040 


S 


146,574 


5206 


$ 


85 


950 


S 


80,969 


5208 


S 


99 


300 


S 


29,601 


5210 


$ 


114 


140 


S 


15,989 


5366 


S 


73 


1500 


S 


109,890 


5312 


s 


67 


475 


S 


31,863 


5174 


s 


106 


200 


S 


21,222 


1446 


s 


56 


205 


S 


1 1 ,396 






s 


447.504 



Assistant Civil Engineer 
Associate Civil Engineer 
Civil Engineer 
Senior Civil Engineer 
Engineering Associate 
Surveying Assistant 
Administrative Engineer 
Administrative Assistant 



TOTAL 



Segment 4 - Bayview 
Engineering Design 
Title 



Class. No. Hrly Rate Hrs 



Totals 



Assistant Civil Engineer 
Associate Civil Engineer 
Civil Engineer 
Senior Civil Engineer 
Engineering Associate 
Surveying Assistant 
Administrative Engineer 
Administrative Assistant 



TOTAL 



5204 


$ 


72 


1550 


S 


111,368 


5206 


S 


85 


650 


S 


55,400 


5208 


$ 


99 


280 


S 


27,628 


5210 


S 


114 


135 


S 


15,418 


5366 


S 


73 


1200 


S 


87,912 


5312 


s 


67 


275 


s 


18,447 


5174 


$ 


106 


200 


s 


21,222 


1446 


$ 


56 


200 


s 


11,118 






s 


348.512 



12 



Attachment I 
Pap 2 of 15 



SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION BUDGET SUMMARY 
LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS REHABILITATION PROJECTS 
Bureau of Engineering Estimated Labor Budget 



Segment 5 - South Bayview 














Engineering Design 














Title 


Class. No. 


Hrly 


Rate 


Hrs 




Totals 


Assistant Civil Engineer 


5204 


$ 


72 


1000 


$ 


71,850 


Associate Civil Engineer 


5206 


$ 


85 


550 


$ 


46,877 


Civil Engineer 


5208 


$ 


99 


210 


S 


20,721 


Senior Civil Engineer 


5210 


$ 


114 


85 


$ 


9,708 


Engineering Associate 


5366 


$ 


73 


865 


$ 


63,370 


Surveying Assistant 


5312 


$ 


67 


230 


$ 


15,428 


Administrative Engineer 


5174 


$ 


106 


130 


$ 


13,794 


Administrative Assistant 


1446 
TOTAL 


$ 


56 


104 


$ 
S 


5,781 
247.529 



Segment 6 - Bayshore/Visitacion Valley 

Engineering Design 

Title 



Class. No. Hrly Rate Hrs 



Totals 



Assistant Civil Engineer 
Associate Civil Engineer 
Civil Engineer 
Senior Civil Engineer 
Engineering Associate 
Surveying Assistant 
Administrative Engineer 
Administrative Assistant 



TOTAL 



Lump Sum - Testing Lab 
PROJECT TOTAL 



5204 


$ 


72 


1500 


$ 


107,775 


5206 


$ 


85 


710 


$ 


60,513 


5208 


$ 


99 


250 


$ 


24,668 


5210 


$ 


114 


180 


$ 


20,558 


5366 


$ 


73 


1000 


$ 


73,260 


5312 


$ 


67 


490 


$ 


32,869 


5174 


$ 


106 


220 


$ 


23,344 


1446 


$ 


56 


109 


$ 


6,059 






S 


349,046 










$ 


29,934 










$ 


1.670.000 



13 



Attachment I 
Page 1 ot 15 



SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION BUDGET SUMMARY 
LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS REHABILITATION PROJECTS 
Bureau of Engineering Estimated Labor Budget 

Clement/Geary Roadway Rehabilitation Project 



Engineering Design 
Title 




Class. No. 


Hrly 


Rate 


Hrs 




Totals 


Junior Civil Engineer 
Assistant Civil Engineer 
Associate Civil Engineer 
Civil Engineer 
Senior Civil Engineer 
Chief Surveyor 
Surveying Assistant 
Engineering Associate 


TOTAL 


5201 
5204 
5206 
5208 
5210 
5216 
5312 
5366 


$ 
$ 
$ 
$ 
S 
$ 

s 

s 


65 
72 
85 
99 
114 
98 
67 
73 


630 
390 
590 
230 
65 
90 
230 
225 


$ 
S 
S 
S 
S 
S 
$ 
$ 

S 


40,843 
28,022 
50,286 
22,694 
7,424 
8,837 
15,428 
16,484 

190.017 


Construction Management 
Title 




Class. No. 


Hrly Rate 


Hrs 




Totals 


Associate Civil Engineer 
Civil Engineer 
Senior Civil Engineer 
Testing Lab Technician 
Construction Inspector 


TOTAL 


5206 
5208 
5210 
5305 
6318 


S 
S 
S 
$ 
S 


85 
99 
114 
59 
80 


190 
110 
75 
335 
2.298 


s 

s 
s 
s 
s 

s 


16.194 

10,854 

8,566 

19,698 

184,690 

240.001 


PROJECT TOTAL 










s . 


43Q,Q18 



14 



Clement/Geary Roadway Rehabilitation Project 
Preliminary Engineer's Construction Cost Estimate 



Attachment I 
Page 4 of 15 



Roadway Work 



Bid Item 

'Nq. : ->; 


- 


^Estimated; 
CQuanTity^ 


worm 


-■■-'■■■'- ^zggm* 


|tgs£ Extefisioh^l 


1 


Traffic Routing Work for Paving Work 


... 


... 


LS 


$46,000.00 


2 


Full-Depth Planing per 2-Inch Depth of Cut 


675,150 


SF 


$0.65 


$438,847.50 


3 


Asphalt Concrete (Type A, 1/2-Inch Maximum with 
Medium Grading) 


11,200 


TON 


$65.00 


$728,000.00 


4 


3 1/2-Inch Thick Concrete Sidewalk 


3,250 


SF 


$8.00 


$26,000.00 


5 


Concrete Curb Ramp 


148 


EA 


$1,400.00 


$207,200.00 


6 


6-Inch Thick Concrete Curb 


875 


LF 


$30.00 


$26,250.00 


7 


8-Inch Thick Concrete Base 


1 1 ,724 


SF 


$10.00 


$117,240.00 


8 


8-Inch Thick Concrete Parking Strip 


4,500 


SF 


$11.00 


$49,500.00 


9 


Project Sign 


... 


... 


LS 


$2,000.00 


10 


Field Office for Engineer, Satandard Type "B" 


... 


... 


LS 


$3,000.00 


11 


Adjust City-Owned Manhole Frame and Cover to 
Grade 


12 


EA 


$300.00 


$3,600.00 


12 


Adjust San Francisco Fire Department-Owned 
Low-Pressure Hydrant Lead Valve Box Casting 
Cover to Grade 


6 


EA 


$200.00 


$1,200.00 


13 


Adjust San Francisco Fire Department-Owned 
High-Pressure Hydrant Lead Valve Box Casting 
Cover to Grade 


4 


EA 


$300.00 


$1,200.00 


14 


Furnish and Install Temporary 4-Inch Broken 
White/Yellow Striping 


10,000 


LF 


$0.75 


$7,500.00 


15 


Furnish and Install Temporary 8-Inch Solid White 
Striping 


500 


LF 


$1.90 


$950.00 


16 


Furnish and Install Temporary 12-Inch Crosswalk 
Striping 


5,200 


LF 


$2.90 


$15,080.00 


17 


Furnish and Install Temporary Double Yellow 
Striping 


50 


LF 


$2.50 


$125.00 


18 


Furnish and Install Temporary Raised Pavement 
Markers 


451 


EA 


$1.50 


$676.50 


19 


Uniformed Off-Duty San Francisco Police Officers 
(As Required by the Engineer. No Bid Required) 


... 


... 


Allowance 


$40,000.00 


20 


Adjust San Francisco Water Dept-Owned 6-Inch 
or 8-Inch Valve Box Casting Cover to Grade 


72 


EA 


$65.00 


$4,680.00 


21 


Adjust San Francisco Water Dept-Owned 6-Inch 
or 8-Inch Valve Box Casting Cover to Grade 
(Deletable Bid Item) 


1 


EA 


$300.00 


$300.00 



Total of Roadway Work 51,719,349.00 



As submitted in DPW's Labor Budget - 
As submitted in DPW's Labor Budget - 



Anticipated Milestones: 

Contract Bid 
Contract Award 
Construction Start 



Construction Subtotal: 

Engineering Design: 

Construction Management: 

Contingency: 



$1,719,349.00 
$190,000.00 
$240,000.00 
$172,000.00 



Total Project Cost: $2,321,349.00 



Aug-01 
Oct-01 
Dec-01 



Hyde Street Roadway Rehabilitation Project 
Preliminary Engineer's Construction Cost Estimate 



Attachment I 
Page 5 of 15 



Roadway Work 



Bid Item 
MrSttmNk 


^S^^tM Bid'ltem's 


Estimated 

1 Qua 

■■■■■- 


■^m 


:."U;- s Pnce ■ 


mm 


1 


Traffic Routing Work for Pavinq Work 


... 


LS 


530,000.00 


2 


Full-Depth Planing per 2-Inch Depth of Cut 


180,000 


SF 


S0.65 


$117,000.00 


3 


Asphalt Concrete (Type A, 1/2-Inch Maximum 
with Medium Grading) 


2,500 


TON 


S65.00 


$162,500.00 


4 


3 1/2-Inch Thick Concrete Sidewalk 


3,900 


SF 


S7.00 


S27.300.00 


5 


Concrete Curb Ramp 


57 


EA 


S1.200.00 


S68.400.00 


6 


6-Inch Thick Concrete Curb 


250 


LF 


S30.00 


$7,500.00 


7 


8-Inch Thick Concrete Base 


8,275 


SF 


S9.00 


S74, 475.00 


8 


8-Inch Thick Concrete Parking Strip 


150 


SF 


S10.00 


Si, 500. 00 


9 


Project Sign 


... 


... 


LS 


S2, 000.00 


10 


Field Office for Engineer, Standard Type "B" 


... 


... 


LS 


53,000.00 


11 


Adjust City-Owned Manhole Frame and Cover to 
Grade 


2 


EA 


S300.00 


$600.00 


12 


Adjust San Francisco Fire Department-Owned 
Low-Pressure Hydrant Lead Valve Box Casting 
Cover to Grade 


2 


EA 


$200.00 


$400.00 


13 


Adjust San Francisco Fire Department-Owned 
High-Pressure Hydrant Lead Valve Box Casting 
Cover to Grade 


2 


EA 


S300.00 


$600.00 


14 


Furnish and Install Temporary 4-Inch Broken 
White/Yellow Striping 


5,800 


LF 


S0.75 


$4,350.00 


15 


Furnish and Install Temporary 8-Inch Solid White 
Striping 


300 


LF 


S1.90 


S570.00 


16 


Furnish and Install Temporary 12-Inch Crosswalk 
Striping 


4,100 


LF 


S2.90 


$11,890.00 


17 


Furnish and Install Temporary Double Yellow 
Striping 


50 


LF 


S2.50 


$1 25.00 


18 


Furnish and Install Temporary Raised Pavement 
Markers 


510 


EA 


$1.50 


$765.00 


19 


Uniformed Off-Duty San Francisco Police Officers 
(As Required by the Engineer. No Bid Required) 


... 


... 


Allowance 


$40,000.00 


20 


Adjust San Francisco Water Dept-Owned 6-Inch 
or 8-Inch Valve Box Casting Cover to Grade 


65 


EA 


$65.00 


S4.225.00 


21 


Adjust San Francisco Water Dept-Owned 6-Inch 
or 8-Inch Valve Box Casting Cover to Grade 
(Deletable Bid Item) 


1 


EA 


$300.00 


$300.00 



Total of Roadway Work S557.500.00 



Construction Subtotal: 

Contingency: 

Total Project Cost: 



$557,500.00 

S57,500.00 

S615,000.00 



Anticipated Milestones: 

Contract Bid 
Contract Award 
Construction Start 
Construction End 



16 



Aug-01 
Oct-01 
Nov-01 
May-02 



Attachment 



Buchanan Street Pavement Renovation and Sewer Replacement Project 
Preliminary Engineer's Construction Cost Estimate 



Roadway Work 



3id,.lfem 

mm 


s . : *Biditerns^ ^^£ 


<£s.timated; 
'^Quantity* 


MUnitfe 


'4| Un if Price/;} 


-j>.j. Extension;"..--- 


1 


Traffic Routing Work for Paving Work 


... 


... 


LS 


S20.000.00 


2 


Temporary 12" Crosswalk Striping 


2,000 


LF 


S2.90 


S5,800.00 


3 


Uniformed Off-Duty San Francisco Police Officers 
(As required by the Engineer for Paving Work (No 
Bid Required) 


— 


... 


Allowance 


$10,000.00 


4 


Full-Depth Planing per 2-Inch Depth of Cut 


51,325 


SF 


S0.80 


S41 ,060.00 


5 


Wedge-Shaped Planing Per 2-Inch Depth of Cut 
by 7-foot Wide 


1,850 


LF 


$1.90 


$3,515.00 


6 


Asphalt Concrete (Type A, 1/2-Inch Maximum 
with Medium Grading) 


935 


TON 


S60.00 


$56,100.00 


7 


8-Inch Thick Concrete Base 


6,750 


SF 


S7.00 


$47,250.00 


8 


8-Inch Thick Concrete Pavement 


8,750 


SF 


S7.50 


$65,625.00 


9 


6-Inch Thick Concrete Curb 


3,900 


LF 


$30.00 


$117,000.00 


10 


3 1/2-Inch Thick Concrete Sidewalk 


7,500 


SF 


S6.50 


$48,750.00 


11 


Concrete Curb Ramp 


16 


EA 


51,200.00 


$19,200.00 


12 


Project Sign 


... 


... 


LS 


$2,000.00 


13 


Field Office for Engineer, Standard Type "B" 


... 


— 


LS 


$3,000.00 


14 


Adjust City-Owned Manhole Frame and Cover to 
Grade 


7 


EA 


$180.00 


$1,260.00 


15 


Adjust San Francisco Fire Department-Owned 
Low-Pressure Hydrant Lead Valve Box Casting 
Cover to Grade 


5 


EA 


$180.00 


$900.00 


16 


Adjust San Francisco Fire Department-Owned 
Low-Pressure Hydrant Lead Valve Box Casting 
Cover to Grade 


3 


EA 


$180.00 


$540.00 


17 


Adjust San Francisco Fire Department-Owned 
Low-Pressure Hydrant Lead Valve Box Casting 
Cover to Grade 


20 


EA 


$65.00 


$1,300.00 


18 


Reconstruct San Francisco Water Department- 
Owned 6-Inch or 8-Inch Valve Box Casting Cover 
to Grade (Deletable Bid Item) 


1 


EA 


$300.00 


$300.00 



Total of Roadway Work 



Construction Subtotal: 

Contingency: 

Total Project Cost: 



$443,600.00 

$44,400.00 

$488,000.00 



Anticipated Milestones: 

Contract Bid 
Contract Award 
Construction Start 
Construction End 



Aug-01 
Oct-01 
Nov-01 
May-02 



17 



Attachment I 
Page 7 of 15 



Fell Street Pavement Renovation Project 
Preliminary Engineer's Construction Cost Estimate 

Roadway Work 



Bid Item 


K— " -. . 


Estimated 
•:: Quantity •■ 




- - 


WSM§W 


1 


Traffic Routing Work for Paving Work 


... 


... 


LS 


S46.000.00 


2 


Full-Depth Planing per 2-Inch Depth of Cut 


200,000 


SF 


S0.70 


$140,000.00 


3 


Asphalt Concrete (Type A, 1/2-Inch Maximum 
with Medium Grading) 


4,400 


TON 


$65.00 


S286.000.00 


4 


3 1/2-Inch Thick Concrete Sidewalk 


3,200 


LF 


S7.00 


$22,400.00 


5 


Concrete Curb Ramp 


42 


EA 


S1 ,600.00 


$67,200.00 


6 


6-Inch Thick Concrete Curb 


310 


LF 


$30.00 


$9,300.00 


7 


8-Inch Thick Concrete Base 


35,000 


SF 


$8.00 


S280,000.00 


8 


8-Inch Thick Concrete Parking Strip 


1,200 


SF 


S9.00 


$10,800.00 


9 


Project Sign 


... 


... 


LS 


$2,000.00 


10 


Field Office for Engineer, Standard Type "B" 


... 


— 


LS 


S3.000.00 


11 


Adjust City-Owned Manhole Frame and Cover to 
Grade 


20 


EA 


$300.00 


$6,000.00 


12 


Adjust San Francisco Fire Department-Owned 
Low-Pressure Hydrant Lead Valve Box Casting 
Cover to Grade 


5 


EA 


$200.00 


$1,000.00 


13 


Adjust San Francisco Fire Department-Owned 
High-Pressure Hydrant Lead Valve Box Casting 
Cover to Grade 


2 


EA 


$300.00 


$600.00 


14 


Furnish and Install Temporary 4-Inch Broken 
White/Yellow Striping 


5,800 


LF 


S0.75 


$4,350.00 


15 


Furnish and Install Temporary 8-Inch Solid White 
Striping 


250 


LF 


$1.90 


$475.00 


16 


Furnish and Install Temporary 12-Inch Crosswalk 
Striping 


3,500 


LF 


$2.90 


$10,150.00 


17 


Furnish and Install Temporary Double Yellow 
Striping 


100 


LF 


S2.50 


$250.00 


18 


Furnish and Install Temporary Raised Pavement 
Markers 


350 


EA 


$1.50 


$525.00 


19 


Uniformed Off-Duty San Francisco Police Officers 
(As Required by the Engineer. No Bid Required) 


— 


— 


Allowance 


$30,000.00 


20 


Repair Side Sewer (Deletable Bid Item) 


100 


LF 


S1 00.00 


$10,000.00 


21 


Adjust San Francisco Water Dept-Owned 6-Inch 
or 8-Inch Valve Box Casting Cover to Grade 


50 


EA 


S55.00 


$3,250.00 


22 


Adjust San Francisco Water Dept-Owned 6-Inch 
or 8-Inch Valve Box Casting Cover to Grade 
(Deletable Bid Item} 


1 


EA 


$300.00 


$300.00 



Total of Roadway Work $933.600.00 



Anticipated Milestones: 

Contract Bid 
Contract Award 
Construction Start 



18 



Construction Subtotal: S933, 600.00 

Contingency: $93,400.00 

Total Project Cost: S1 ,027,000.00 



Aug-01 
Oct-01 
Nov-01 



SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION BUDGET SUMMARY 
LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS REHABILITATION PROJECTS 
Bureau of Engineering Estimated Labor Budget 



Attachment I 
Page 8 of 15 



3rd St. Bridge Wharf Retrofit Project 



Engineering Design 
Title 




Class. No. 


Hrly Rate 


Hrs 




Totals 


Associate Civil Engineer 
Engineering Associate 
Civil Engineer 
Administrative Engineer 


TOTAL 


5206 
5366 
5208 
5174 


S 85 
$ 73 
$ 99 
$ 106 


290 
96 
40 

135 


$ 
$ 
$ 
$ 

$ 


24,717 
7,033 
3,947 

14,325 

50.021 


Construction Management 
Title 




Class. No. 


Hrly Rate 


Hrs 




Totals 


Associate Civil Engineer 
Civil Engineer 
Construction Inspector 


TOTAL 


5206 
5208 
6318 


$ 85 
$ 99 
$ 80 


90 
70 
441 


$ 
$ 
$ 

S 


7,671 
6,907 

35,443 

50,021 


PROJECT TOTAL 








$ 


100.042 



19 



Attachment I 
fraee 9 of 15 



3rd Street Bridge Marginal Wharf Retrofit 
Preliminary Engineer's Construction Cost Estimate 



Bid Item 

Mm 


■SP-:.-.-:. -p^, --■■ ■■--■■ ^Estimated 




■ 


..'. 


1 


Bridge Removal 


... 


... 


LS 


S16.435.00 


2 


Furnish 24" Cast-in-place shell concrete pile 


372 


LF 


$140.00 


S52.080.00 


3 


Drive 24" Cast-in-place shell concrete pile 


4 


EA 


512,000.00 


S48.000.00 


4 


Structural concrete bridge 


21 


CY 


$800.00 


$16,800.00 


5 


Drill and bond dowel 


52 


LF 


S50.00 


S2, 600.00 


6 


Core concrete and pressure grout 


28 


LF 


590.00 


S2, 520.00 


7 


Bar reinforcing steel (epoxy-coated) 


5,322 


LB 


51.50 


57,983.00 


8 


Bar reinforcing steel (pile) 


21,660 


LB 


S0.75 


S16.245.00 


9 


Elastometric Bearing 


2 


EA 


54,000.00 


58.000.00 


10 


Miscellaneous Metal 


262 


LB 


S 15.00 


• 53.930.00 


11 


Metal Railing 


46 


LF 


5150.00 


S6.900.00 


12 


Rehabilitation of Existing Piles 


4 


EA 


S22, 000.00 


588,000.00 


13 


Ladder Removal and Relocation 


... 


... 


LS 


S1, 000.00 


14 


Repair of unsound concrete 


50 


SF 


S470.00 


523,500.00 


15 


Repair of cracks (epoxy) 


50 


LF 


5280.00 


514,000.00 


16 


Utility Relocation 


... 


... 


LS 


S1 0,000.00 


17 


Saw cut/chip out deck for brick pavers 


100 


LF 


S30.00 


S3.000.00 


18 


Removal of end of existing guard rail 


... 


... 


LS 


S2. 000.00 


19 


New Concrete Curb 


18 


LF 


5200.00 


53,600.00 


20 


Patching of saw cut paving for brick pavers 


... 


... 


LS 


$1,000 00 


21 


Brick pavers and mortar bed 


50 


LF 


540.00 


52,000.00 


22 


Metal Enclosure at Existing Electrical Switch Gear 


... 


... 


LS 


515,000.00 


23 


Securing existing door of Operators House 


... 


... 


LS 


S 1,000. 00 


24 


Painting metal 


... 


... 


LS 


53,000.00 


25 


Traffic routing 


... 


... 


LS 


515,000.00 



Total of Bridge Work 5363,593.00 

Construction Subtotal: $363,593.00 

Engineering Design: $50,021.00 

Construction Management: $50,021.00 

Contingency: S36,365.00 

Total Project Cost: S500,000.00 



Anticipated Milestones: 

Contract Bid 
Contract Award 
Construction Start 
Construction End 



Aug-01 
Oct-01 
Nov-01 
May-02 



20 



Attachment I 
Page 10 of 15 



SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION BUDGET SUMMARY 
LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS REHABILITATION PROJECTS 
Bureau of Engineering Estimated Labor Budget 

ADA COMPLIANCE - CURB RAMP CONSTRUCTION PROJECT 



Engineering Design 
Title 




Class. No. 


Hrly 


Rate 


Hrs 




Totals 


Assistant Civil Engineer 
Engineering Associate 
Civil Engineer 
Administrative Engineer 
Administrative Assistant 


TOTAL 


5204 
5366 
5208 
5174 
1446 


$ 
$ 
$ 
$ 

$ 


72 

73 

99 

106 

56 


1,230 
510 

110 
45 
155 


$ 
$ 
$ 
$ 
$ 

S 


88,376 

37,363 

10,854 

4,775 

8,616 

149.983 


Construction Management 
Title 




Class. No. 


Hrly 


Rate 


Hrs 




Totals 


Associate Civil Engineer 
Civil Engineer 
Construction Inspector 
Testing Lab Technician 


TOTAL 


5206 
5208 
6318 
5305 


$ 
$ 
$ 
$ 


85 
99 
80 
59 


90 

220 

1,750 

170 


$ 

s 
$ 
$ 

s 


7,671 

21,707 

140,648 

9,996 

180.022 


PROJECT TOTAL 










$ 


330.005 



Curb Ramp Construction Project 

Preliminary Engineer's Construction Cost Estimate 



Attachment I 
Page II ot lb 



f Bid 3;- 

mm, 

mm 







«SfflSBBSagg 

-Estimated* 

£Quantity> 




1 



Traffic Routing Work 



LS 



510,000 



Concrete Curb Ramp 



700 



EA 



$1,500 



51,050,000 



Project Signs 



LS 



$2,000 



Field Office for Engineer, Standard Type 
"B" 



LS 



51,632 



Construction Subtotal: 51,063,632 

10% Contingency: 5106,363 

Construction TOTAL: 51,169,995 



BOE Labor: 
BCM Labor: 



5149,983 
5180,022 



TOTAL PROJECT COST: 



$1,500,000 



Anticipated* Milestones: 
Contract Bid 
Contract Award 
Construction Start 
Construction End 



Dec-01 
Feb-02 
Mar-02 
Jun-02 



'Based on the aggressive timely use of funds 
requirement, DPW anticipates the need to advertise 
for a contractor to do the construction at this time. 



22 



Attachment I 
Page 12. ot 15 



Belden Alley Pedestrian Improvements Project 
Preliminary Engineer's Construction Cost Estimate 



Roadway Work 










Bjoltem 


- Did Items '^v'-.-j 1 -- 

- 


..Estimated 
^Quantity- 


iHfiii 

l|ynjt|g 


wmmm 

■®;Urjit Priced' 


>?'. Extensions^'- 


1 


Traffic Routing Work 


... 


— 


LS 


$10,000.00 


2 


Mobilization 


... 


... 


Allowance 


$15,000.00 


3 


Demolition of Existing Sidewalk and Curbs 


720 


SF 


$5.00 


$3,600.00 


4 


Remove Existing Bollards and Patch Sidewalk 


25 


EA 


S200.00 


$5,000.00 


5 


Asphalt Concrete (Type 'A' 1/2-Inch Maximum 
with Medium Grading) 


2,550 


SF 


$10.00 


$25,500.00 


6 


3 1/2-Inch Thick Concrete Sidewalk and 
Driveways 


600 


SF 


$20.00 


$12,000.00 


7 


Grout Existing Curbs 


... 


... 


Allowance 


$5,000.00 



Total of Roadway Work 376,100.00 



Landscape Work 



Bid Item 

|§|§tt 


v'--^.--, - .Bid Items ■ . ... -■: -^-:. 


Estimated 

.Quantity 


jfUnitil 


■sssmm 

vfeUnitPnce% 


i^S Extension Is s 


1 


Warning Pavers 


100 


SF 


$20.00 


$2,000.00 


2 


Bollards with Concrete Replacement 


36 


EA 


$1,500.00 


$54,000.00 


3 


Replacement Bollards 


6 


EA 


$1,200.00 


$7,200.00 


4 


Gates 


3 


EA 


$15,000.00 


$45,000.00 


5 


Gate Posts 


6 


EA 


$2,500.00 


$15,000.00 



Total of Landscape Work S1 23.200.00 



Utility Relocation Work 



Bid Item 


W!&^^£!f'Bk?items£^ 


Estimated 

-;: Quantity 


SPSS 




"S' Extension,!^ 


1 


Raise Utilities 


5 


EA 


$1,000.00 


$5,000.00 


2 


Relocate Existing Catch Basin 


1 


EA 


$3,000.00 


$3,000.00 


3 


Construct New Catch Basin with Culverts 


2 


EA 


$5,000.00 


$10,000.00 


4 


Construct New Drain Inlets 


4 


EA 


$2,500.00 


$10,000.00 



Total of Utility Relocation Work S28.000.00 



Construction Subtotal: 

Contingency: 

Total Project Cost: 



$227,300.00 

$22,700.00 

$250,000.00 



Anticipated Milestones: 

Contract Bid 
Contract Award 
Construction Start 
Construction End 



Sep-01 
Nov-01 
Jan-02 
May-02 



21 



Arrarbiripnt I 
Page 13 of 15 



SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION BUDGET SUMMARY 
LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS REHABILITATION PROJECTS 
Bureau of Engineering Estimated Labor Budget 



4th St. Sidewalk Widening Project 

Engineering Design 

Title 



Junior Civil Engineer 
Assistant Civil Engineer 
Associate Civil Engineer 
Civil Engineer 
Senior Civil Engineer 
Chief Surveyor 
Surveying Assistant 
Engineering Associate 



Class. No. Hrly Rate Hrs 



5201 


S 


65 


110 


$ 


5204 


$ 


72 


115 


$ 


5206 


$ 


85 


90 


S 


5208 


$ 


99 


80 


$ 


5210 


$ 


114 


40 


$ 


5216 


s 


98 


24 


$ 


5312 


s 


67 


80 


S 


5366 


$ 


73 


120 


s 



Totals 



7,131 
8,263 
7,671 
7,894 
4,568 
2,357 
5,366 
8,791 



TOTAL 



52.041 



Construction Management 
Title 



Class. No. Hrly Rate Hrs 



Totals 



Associate Civil Engineer 
Civil Engineer 
Senior Civil Engineer 
Construction Inspector 
Testing Lab Technician 



5206 $ 


85 


110 


$ 


9,375 


5208 S 


99 


20 


S 


1,973 


5210 $ 


114 


25 


$ 


2,855 


6318 $ 


80 


765 


s 


61,483 


5305 $ 


59 


40 


$ 


2,352 



TOTAL 



78.039 



PROJECT TOTAL 



130,080 



24 



Fourth Street Sidewalk Widening Project, Phase II (Market to Jessie) 
Preliminary Engineer's Construction Cost Estimate 



Attachment I 
Page 14 of 15 



Roadway Work 




Full Depth Planing per 2-Inch Depth of Cut 



25,000 



S0.55 



$13,750.00 



Asphalt Concrete (Type 'A' 1/2-Inch Maximum with 
Medium Grading) 



650 



TON 



S65.00 



$42,250.00 



8-Inch Thick Concrete Base 



25,000 



SF 



$6.50 



$162,500.00 



8-Inch Thick Concrete Parking Strip 



2,530 



SF 



S6.50 



$16,445.00 



3 1/2-Inch Thick Concrete Sidewalk 



6,000 



SF 



$7.00 



$42,000.00 



Replace Existing 3 1/2-Inch Thick Concrete 
Sidewalk Above Sub-basement 



6,500 



SF 



$20.00 



$130,000.00 



6-Inch Concrete Curb 



900 



LF 



$30.00 



$27,000.00 



Curb Ramps 



EA 



$1,100.00 



$7,700.00 



Project Signs 



LS 



$2,000.00 



10 



Field Office for Engineer, Standard Type "B" 



Adjust City-Owned Manhole or Catchbasin Frame 
and Cover to Grade 



LS 



$4,000.00 



EA 



$500.00 



$500.00 



12 



Adjust to Grade Existing Manhole 



EA 



$500.00 



S500.00 



12 



Traffic Routing Work 



LS 



$50,000.00 



13 



Off-Duty SFPD Officers 



Temporary Retroreflective Pavement Markings 
after Base Reconstruction/Grinding (3M Series 
5160/5161) - Crosswalk/Stop Line 12' 



120 



HR 



$65.00 



$7,800.00 



14 



500 



LF 



$2.00 



$1,000.00 



15 



Temporary Retroreflective Pavement Markings 
after Base Reconstruction/Grinding (3M Series 
5160/5161) - Lane Lines 8 Solid/Broken 



1,200 



LF 



$2.00 



$2,400.00 



16 



Temporary Retroreflective Pavement Markings 
after Base Reconstruction/Grinding (3M Series 
51 60/51 6t) • 4-Inch Broken White 



1,200 



LF 



$1.00 



$1,200.00 



17 Temporary Reflective Overlay Pavement Markers 



100 



EA 



$1.00 



$100.00 



Total of Roadway Work 



$511.145.00 



Landscape Work 



Bid Item 




;Estimated 



Remove Special Paving, 1450 sf 



LS 



$4,000.00 



Sawcut & Remove Existing Bricks 



600 



SF 



$10.00 



$6,000.00 



Remove Tree Grates, 8 



LS 



$400.00 



Provide Brick Paving 



900 



SF 



$40.00 



$36,000.00 



Salvage & Install Bronze Sidewalk Name Plaque 



EA 



$250.00 



$250.00 



Provide Tree Grates 



EA 



S800.00 



$6,400.00 



Prepare Pits, Maintain 8 Existing Trees 



LS 



$2,800.00 



Provide Special Paving & Concrete Band 



LS 



$52,120.00 



Form Special Curb Ramp 



LS 



$2,000.00 



10 



Remove & Install Granite Curb 



100 



LF 



S1 40.00 



$14,000.00 



Salvage & Install Granite Curb Ramp Band 



40 



LF 



$130.00 



$5,200.00 



12 



Provide Granite Curb 



30 



LF 



$200.00 



$6,000.00 



Total of Landscape Work 



5135,170.00 



25 



Attachment I 
Page LS ot 15 



Lighting Work 



Bid Item 

Wm 






Estimated 
^Quantity.: 



M^ 



: .?-Un;t> 






1 | Lighting 



LS 



S' 00.000.00 



Total of Lighting Work 



S100.000.00 



Utility Relocation Work 



■■•■-•AitKVA 

Bidlterfi 

iH 


I Bid'lt'SmsT^S^^gr 


■■■■'. ••: 
Estimated 


V nv ; "' 


.'-:■ Unit Price .. 


tension 3j2>&5 


1 


Relocate 1 High Pressure Hydrant 


... 


... 


LS 


S1 0.000.00 


2 


Relocate 200' - 12" Diameter AWSS Main 


... 


... 


LS 


S75.000.00 


3 


Remove, Salvage as City's Property and Deliver to 
DPT Sign Shop Double Posts Sign Supports and 
Installation of Two Signs on Single Post 


1 


EA 


S200.00 


S200.00 


4 


Furnish and Install Parking Meter Posts 


9 


EA 


S50.00 


S450.00 


5 


Removal and Relocation of "Single Post" and 
installation of up to Two Siqns on Sinqle Post 


6 


EA 


S1 00.00 


S60O.00 


3 


Remove Existing MUNI Steel Pole, Furnish and 
Install new Street Trolley Pole, Type 767 with 
Foundation and Traffic Signal Arm 


3 


EA 


S4.500.00 


513,500.00 


4 


Special Pole Foundation 


1 


EA 


S4. 000.00 


S4.000.00 


5 


MUNI Overhead Work per MUNI Drawings 


... 


... 


LS 


S15.000.00 


6 


Abandon Existinq Catchbasin 


4 


EA 


S300.00 


S1. 200.00 


7 


Standard Concrete Catchbasin with no Curb Inlet 
with Salvage Frame and Grating (Per Std. Plan LL- 
18,093.1 Ch.7) 


4 


EA 


S3.000.00 


S12.000.00 


8 


1 0" Diameter VCP Culvert 


12 


LF 


SI 00.00 


SI .200.00 


9 


Excavation and Backfill for Hvdrant Relocation 


5 


CY 


Si 00.00 


S500.00 


10 


Remove and Reinstall 1" Meter Boxes and Covers 


2 


EA 


S 100.00 


S200.00 


11 


Remove and Reinstall 2" Meter Boxes and Covers 


3 


EA 


S160.00 


$480.00 


12 


Adjusting SFWD-Owned 6" & 8" Valve Box & 
Cover to Grade 


7 


EA 


S65.00 


S455.00 


13 


Reconstructing SFWD-Owned 6' & 8* Valve Box 
& Cover to Grade 


3 


EA 


S1 00.00 


S300.00 


14 


Support and Work Around SFWD Facilities 


— 


— 


LS 


S5.000.00 


15 


Work to be Done bv Others (SFWD) 


- 


._ 


LS 


S10.000.00 



"Design labor as shown in the Labor Budget 
for AB 2928 funding is prorated 
"Construction Management labor as shown in 
the Labor Budget for AB 2928 funding is 
prorated 



Total of Utility Relocation Work 

Construction Subtotal: 

Engineering Design: 



Construction Management: 

Contingency: 

Total Project Cost: 



DPW Funding Plan 

This is project is being funded from the following sources: 

Prop B Half- Cent Sales Tax: 

AB 2928 Funding Request: 

Private Funding from Developers: 



S150,085.00 
$896,400.00 
$1 50,000.00 



$134,000.00 

$89,600.00 

$1,270,000.00 



S440.000 

5650,000 

S1 80.000 

$1. 270.000 



Anticipated Milestones: 

Contract Bid 
Contract Award 
Construction Start 
Construction End 



26 



Jun-01 
Aug-01 
Oct-01 
Apr-02 



and County of San Francisco 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of 8 

Department of Public Works 
Finance and Budget Division 



March 1,2001 

Mr. Harvey Rose 

Board of Supervisors' Budget Analyst 
1390 Market Street, Suite 1025 
San Francisco, California 94102 

Subject: File 01-0276 - Ordinance for a Supplemental Appropriation for State Traffic 
Congestion Relief Fund Money 

Dear Mr. Rose: 

This letter is in response to Ms. Emilie Neumann of your staff requesting that the 
Department of Public Works (DPW or the Department) explain how it generally prioritizes 
roadway projects as well as how it arrived at its list of proposed projects for Traffic 
Congestion Relief Fund (TCRF) money allocated to the City during FY 00-01 . 

GENERAL RESURFACING PROJECT PRIORITIZATION 

Pavement Management & Mapping System 

Since 1984, DPW has used a Pavement Management System to set priorities for 
resurfacing City-maintained streets. This system, now called the Pavement Management 
and Mapping System (PMMS) resides within DPW's Street Construction Coordination 
Center (SCCC). The PMMS is a tool that establishes a ranking that allows DPW to 
determine which streets with asphalt surfaces are nearing the end of their useful lives and 
should be resurfaced before there is damage to the concrete base. If a street's 
maintenance is deferred and the asphalt topcoat is deteriorated to the degree that its 
concrete is allowed to suffer damage, it becomes more costly to repair. 

In general, the streets of San Francisco have an average useful life of eighteen to twenty 
(18-20) years. However, a street's useful life is shortened when there is more traffic and 
heavy vehicles traveling over it. Thus, a busier street's asphalt will usually last for five to 
ten years while a quieter street can remain functional for thirty years or more. Another 
factor that shortens pavement life is utility trenching. Periodically, utilities such as PG&E or 
the Water Department must repair or replace their facilities that lie underneath the street's 
pavement. In order to reach them, the utilities must saw cut through the pavement which, 
in effect, can cause a vulnerable spot in the street. 

DPW inspects the physical condition of each of San Francisco's 12,000-plus blocks every 
two years. The streets are rated based upon ride quality (bumpiness), cracking, surface 
erosion, and the number and size of utility trenches in each block. These five rating 



30 Van Ness Ave, 5th FI. San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 558-4000 / FAX (415) 558-4519 



Attachment II 
Page I ot « 

Mr. Harvey Rose 
March 1,2001 
-Page 2 - 

components combined with traffic volume and loading, give a good estimate of how much 
longer the pavement on a certain block will last before it will have to be resurfaced. DPW 
then ranks the street on a decreasing scale starling with 100 (reflecting a freshly 
resurfaced or new roadway) to negative thirty-one (-31). This ranking permits DPW to see 
citywide all the streets' rankings to determine which blocks need attention first. The 
optimal time to resurface a street is when the PMMS score is between 25 and 60. 

For the street resurfacing projects DPW has proposed, the average PMMS score for those 
projects are as follows: 

Clement Street - 20 th to 45 th Ave. : 41 .3 
Geary Blvd. - 28 th to 39 th Ave. : 47.1 
Hyde St. - Fulton to California St.: 42.4 
Buchanan St. - Clay to Sutter St.: 41 .8 
Fell St. - Steiner to Stanyan St.: 44.4 

San Francisco's Excavation Code 

The City has rewritten its excavation code and has formed the SCCC to improve and 
accelerate the process of utility coordination and paving. DPW coordinates its paving work 
with utility street excavation in order to maximize the useful life of the pavement. On a 
particular block, utility excavations are performed first and then the street is paved. After 
the street is paved, there is a moratorium of five (5) years so that no one will dig up the 
fresh pavement, the exception of course being an emergency such as a utility line break. 

Once a street is cleared for all public and private utility work or coordinated with utility 
excavation projects, DPW determines the type of treatment required (e.g., partial or total 
reconstruction or simple resurfacing). DPW then determines which streets to pave based 
on the amount of funding it has available in a given year. (A copy of DPW's 'The Impact of 
Excavation on San Francisco Streets" is attached for your convenience.) 

DPW's Five-Year Plan 

Each year, after developing a priority list, DPW updates its five-year plan of anticipated 
streets to be paved. Prior to scheduling a street for paving, the street is checked against 
utility excavators' 5-Year Plans of anticipated major work. Paving is coordinated with utility 
excavation projects and where possible, jointly contracted. Each street is either cleared by 
utilities of future utility street excavations to avoid excavation of newly-paved streets or 
utility excavation projects are coordinated with paving projects to extend the life of the 
pavement and to minimize disruption to neighborhoods and the traveling public. The City 
places a five (5) year moratorium for excavation on a street after it has been paved. 

Lastly, DPW makes an effort to support those streets with heavily used Muni routes and 
maintains a conscientious effort to ensure that improvements are equitably distributed 

28 



Attachment II 
Page 3 of 8 

Mr. Harvey Rose 

March 1 , 2001 

-Page 3 - 



among various neighborhoods and commercial districts throughout the City. DPW 
contracts out street improvements that cost more than $100,000 while allowing its Bureau 
of Street and Sewer Repair (BSSR) to undertake those resurfacing projects below 
$100,000. 

In Partnership with the Community 

DPW uses its Public Affairs staff to notify impacted neighbors about an upcoming street 
resurfacing project. Thirty days prior to the start of construction, DPW sends a notice to 
each address on the blocks to be paved. Provisions are made within the DPW contract 
package that requires contractors to provide access to businesses and residents so that 
they are not unduly restricted. Both the Public Affairs and SCCC staff are available to 
assist residents and businesses with their concerns while a resurfacing project is in 
progress. 

If DPW knows that it will need to pave a street that has suffered major damage, such as in 
the case where the street's concrete base is damaged, the outreach effort is started by 
DPW staff at least nine to twelve months in advance. This effort is a particular concern for 
DPW when a project will take place in a busy commercial district that also has heavy 
pedestrian traffic. 

For projects in which a roadway's alignment or capacity is being significantly altered, such 
as with the Embarcadero, Bernal Heights, or the Octavia Boulevard Projects, the City 
establishes Citizens Advisory Committees (CAC). 

For street resurfacing or reconstruction projects which are considered routine maintenance, 
DPW submits its list of projects to the San Francisco County Transportation Authority's (TA 
or the Authority) CAC on an annual basis as part of its Proposition B Half-Cent Sales Tax 
grant application. In general, DPW's street resurfacing jobs are funded mostly through the 
Prop. B established by voters in 1989. The Authority usually reviews Prop B grant 
applications in April and May prior to the start of the new fiscal year. As part of that 
process, the CAC reviews all the applications of Departments including DPW's. The TA 
CAC has been supportive of DPW's prioritization method for routine street resurfacing 
projects. 

Provided for your convenience is DPW's 2-Year Plan, which is a subset of the 5-year plan. 



ADDITIONAL CRITERIA USED FOR PROJECTS PROPOSED FOR TCRF 
TIMELY USE OF FUNDS 



29 



Attachment II 
Page 4 ot « 



Mr. Harvey Rose 
March 1 , 2001 
-Page 4 - 



As explained in a previous submission to the Budget Analyst's office, Section 19 (f) of Ch. 
91 of the Statutes of 2000 requires that TCRF money be expended no later than the end of 
the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the allocation was made. For this 
appropriation request, the $9,021,349 was allocated during FY 2000-01, thus the funds 
must be expended no later than June 30, 2002. 

The legislation also states explicitly that any funds not expended by the deadline, in this 
case June 30, 2002, would be returned to the State Controller for reallocation to other 
counties and cities. There are no exceptions to this deadline and there is no avenue by 
which the City can request an extension. 

Lastly, under Section 1 1.5 of AB 2928, the legislation specifically instructs counties to 
deposit these funds into their respective county road funds designated for transportation 
purposes. This requirement essentially requires counties to follow the guidelines 
associated with gas tax money made available to counties under the Proposition 1 1 1 Gas 
Tax Subvention. These guidelines specify the type of street rehabilitation projects that are 
eligible for this funding source. Thus, the projects proposed by DPW comply with those 
guidelines. 

In order to minimize the possibility of lost funds, DPW examined all of its transportation 
projects contained in its 2-Year Plan to see which roadway projects had obtained full utility 
compliance as required by the City's Excavation Ordinance and thus could meet the 
aggressive June 30, 2002 deadline. DPWs most recent 2-Year Plan is attached for your 
convenience. 

ROADWAY PROJECTS THAT SUPPORT TRANSIT 

After reviewing its list of projects that could meet the June 30, 2002 expenditure deadline, 
DPW reviewed roadway projects that also supported high-volume Muni bus routes. Based 
on this analysis, DPW prioritized the Clement St. and Geary Boulevard Roadway 
Rehabilitation Project and the Geary Boulevard and Anza St. Resurfacing Project. 
However, as described below, DPW chose to delete the Geary Boulevard and Anza St. 
Resurfacing Project from its proposed list when its geographic equity cnterion was applied. 

Since DPW is aware that the 3 rd St. Light Rail Project, located in Supervisorial Districts 6 
and 10, is both the TA's and Muni's highest-priority transportation capital project, DPW 
proposed its 3 rd St. Roadway Reconstruction and Paving Project - Design Phase. While 
the light rail project is funded substantially from the Proposition B Half-Cent Sales Tax 
Program, accompanying transportation infrastructure projects, such as street resurfacing, 
were not included. Thus, in consultation with the TA and Muni, DPW ranked this roadway 
design project as a high priority. 

ADA COMPLIANCE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY PROJECTS 



30 



Attachment II 
Yage~5~oF~8 

Mr. Harvey Rose 
March 1,2001 
-Page 5 - 



In the past, DPW has had limited success in gaining discretionary Genera! Fund money for 
pedestrian safety projects. To that end, DPW prioritized its pedestrian projects that would 
have the most positive impact for safety and accessibility for pedestrians, especially those 
pedestrians who use wheelchairs, for TCRF money. Currently, DPW is proposing three 
pedestrian projects: the Curb Ramp Construction Project; the Belden Alley Project; and, 
the Fourth Street Sidewalk Widening Project. 

Curb Ramp Construction Project 

DPW Order 169,270 outlines priorities for curb ramp installations. It is acknowledged that 
funding constraints prevent the full implementation of the policy. Those priorities are: 

1) Existing curb ramps with unsafe conditions (e.g. too steep, too narrow or 
deteriorated). 

2) No curb ramp at the location. 

3) One curb ramp at the location when the federal Americans with Disability Act (ADA) 
and/or California Title 24 require two. 

4) Major utility or other physical barrier. 

5) General safe existing curb ramp that fails to meet some current standard such as 
color contrast or score lines. 

N.B. Many locations fit into Priority 1 and 2 because of the conditions outlined by 
Priority 3. 

A survey report completed by DPW's Geographic Information Services (GIS) staff in 
January 2001 reveal the following statistics in San Francisco: 

6,600 intersections with pedestrian crossings 

22,500 corners with pedestrian crossings 

675 corners fall under Priority 1 (requiring 1,350 curb ramps to be built) 

6,763 corners fall under Priority 2 (requiring 13,526 curb ramps to be built) 

Over the last three (3) years, DPW has built approximately 2,500 curb ramps. Other 
Departments, such as DPT and Muni have funded curb ramps construction in conjunction 
with traffic signal and transit projects. 

Many corners are still not accessible because most federal and state grants do not permit 
the reconstruction of existing curb ramps, even when there is a hazardous condition 
present. Most federal and state grants also preclude a new curb ramp being installed in a 
location that requires a sub-sidewalk abatement or utility relocation. These conditions exist 
throughout San Francisco but are often concentrated in the high use areas where access 
to service is essential. Overall, the need for curb ramps far exceeds the funding available 
to DPW. 



31 



Attachment II 
Page 6 of 8 

Mr. Harvey Rose 
March 1 , 2001 
-Page 6 - 



DPW also maintains a list of curb ramp constructions requested by citizens. Currently, the 
list is comprised of 350 locations. Most people who call are requesting one or two curb 
ramps to complete a route they need to use everyday, e.g., going to the grocery store, 
getting to the bus stop for work, to get to school, etc. Some people have been waiting as 
long as five years because the curb ramp they need built is located near a physical barrier, 
such as a utility vault that would need to relocated and is therefore ineligible for the federal 
or state funds that DPW has. Construction of these types of curb ramps alone could use 
all of the funding that DPW has programmed at this time. Thus, DPW has proposed the 
use of TCRF money for this project. 

Belden Alley 

DPW is the implementing agency of the Department of City Planning's Downtown 
Pedestrian Safety Improvement Projects, which were created in 1992. These projects are 
designed to improve pedestrian movement and safety in the downtown area, especially 
along busy sidewalks. There are a total of six defined projects: 

Powell St. Cable Car Turnaround - completed in 1994 

Ecker St. - completed in 1999 

4 th St. Sidewalk Widening - Phase I completed in 1999; Phase II to begin 

Belden Alley - awaiting construction 

Downtown Pedestrian Signage - Phase I awaiting construction; Phase II to be 

implemented once funding is secured 

Fulton Mall - completing the design phase 

Belden Alley is bounded by Pine on the north, Bush on the south, Montgomery on the east, 
and Kearny on the west in Supervisorial District 3. It is a narrow street in the City's 
downtown commercial core, is designated as a "destination alley" in the City's Downtown 
Streetscape Plan and is part of the Downtown Pedestrian Network. However, the sidewalks 
are currently substandard in width and do not conform to ADA standards. This project's 
scope of work encompasses raising the roadbed, including the concomitant drainage work, 
to the sidewalk level, thus, improving pedestrian safety, especially for pedestrians who use 
wheelchairs. In addition, this project would also provide an equity not currently enjoyed by 
Belden Alley patrons who use a wheelchair. Because of the difference in grades between 
the roadbed and sidewalk, a patron who uses a wheelchair will need to negotiate through 
the Alley to reach conveniences offered inside a building. By equalizing the grades, all 
patrons would have equal access. 

The project also includes the installation of bollards along the street for the separation of 
pedestrian and vehicular traffic as mandated by state code. This will provide pedestrians 
with a safety zone when the street is open to vehicular traffic. By having the bollards 
clearly delineating a safe path of travel, pedestrians can quickly move behind the bollards 
when a driver wants to traverse the alley when it is open to traffic. 



32 



Attachment II 
Page 7 of 8 

Mr. Harvey Rose 

March 1,2001 

-Page 7 - 



For these safety reasons, DPW prioritized Belden Alley for funding from FY 2000-01 
TCRF. 

Fourth Street Sidewalk Widening 



This project is the first series of South of Market pedestrian improvements. The project is 
located on 4 th Street between Market and Mission Streets in Supervisorial District 6. 

As was mentioned previously, Phase I of the project, from Howard to Clara Sts., was 
completed in the summer of 1999. The City completed the work on the west side of 4 th St. 
between these streets. Sony Metreon and the Moscone Project are funding sidewalk work 
along Fourth Street between Mission and Howard Sts., which is scheduled to be completed 
in 2003. 

With respect to Phase II, the project is being funded with a combination of public and 
private funds. Pacific Resources is the private company (Old Navy and the Palomar Hotel) 
contributing $180,000 to Phase II. DPW was granted $440,000 in Proposition B funds and 
is seeking $650,000 in TCRF money to fully fund the project. 

This project is a high priority because of safety and accessibility problems along Fourth 
Street related to the growing senior residential population and increased traffic due to the 
Yerba Buena Center project. This project includes a corner bulb at Mission St. that allows 
for a larger queuing area for pedestrians. The combination of wider sidewalks and a 
corner bulb will shorten crossing distances across 4 th Street, thus improving pedestrian 
safety. 

GEOGRAPHIC EQUITY 

DPW used geographic equity as its final screening criterion. Based on the above projects, 
the Curb Ramp Construction Project has the most far-reaching capability in spreading 
improvements equitably across the City. DPW's Accessibility Coordinator, Susan Ferreyra, 
has established a list of prioritized requests from citizens for curb ramp construction. 

With respect to its paving projects, when the geographic equity criterion was applied the 
Hyde/Buchanan/Fell Resurfacing Project proved to be a better candidate than the Anza 
and Geary Resurfacing Project. As a standard operating procedure, DPW prefers to 
package street resurfacing projects' contracts in such a way that the projects are relatively 
close in geographic proximity and in a way that would permit contractors to pave in 
"ribbons" (multiple blocks along a single street). This combination of proximity and multiple 
blocks along one street is attractive to contractors because they are not so spread out and 
the work is substantial enough to entice companies to place bids. Thus, the more 
attractive the work, the larger the number of bidders, and hopefully a more competitive 
price for the work. 



33 



Attachment II 
Page 8 of 8 

Mr. Harvey Rose 
March 1, 2001 
-Page 8 - 



The Hyde/Buchanan/Fell Resurfacing Project allows the Department to spread paving 
improvements across the following Supervisorial Districts: 

Hyde St. - from Fulton to California - Districts 3 & 6 
Buchanan St. - from Clay to Sutter - Districts 2 & 5 
Fell St. - from Steiner to Stanyan - Districts 1 & 5 

Projects Not Funded 

As has been stated repeatedly, the timely use of funds requirement remains the driving 
force for projects that DPW has proposed. In addition, the Prop 1 1 1 gas tax fund 
guidelines further specify eligible projects for TCRF money. DPW, like all City departments 
has a greater supply of needed projects than it has funding. A copy of DPW's 10-Year 
Transportation Capital Plan for FY 2000-01 is attached for your convenience that generally 
describes DPW's transportation projects. 

If you have any further questions concerning the projects DPW is proposing being funded 
with TCRF money under this appropriation, please contact me at (415) 558-4506 or Ms. 
Tina Olson, Manager of Finance and Budget at (415) 554-4830. 

Sincerely, 

sJitAJi^^^* 

Theresa Burke 
Transportation Finance Analyst 

cc: Tina Olson, Finance & Budget 

Attachments: The Impact of Excavation on San Francisco Streets 
DPW's 2-Year Plan 
DPW's Transportation Capital Plan - FY 2000-01 through FY 2009-10 



34 



Attachment III 
Page 1 ot 3 



o 


o 




s 




o 


c 




~: 




o 
o 




3 


5 


O 

o 






o 


9 c 


CD 


£ 




2 




2 


Z 




2 




2 


2 


Z 


z 


t - 






z 


CO 0" 


S 


o — 




o 


« 


to 


g 


CO 


s 


„ 


TJ 


O 


S P 5 


tn 

c 


< 






< 




° £ tn 
ai r 
f? 3 

HI 

1" 2 

5 3 

1 


■ CD 
If 

O -0 

f 

-1 


2 1 e 

o ° § 

HI 
Iff 

If 


SI 

1 
3 


£ 

1 | 

5 s 

1 


■3 I 

i en 

g -o 

s 1 

8 = 

| a 

=3 
3 


5 e 

i | 

II 

3 
3D 

3 


t 

1 1 
* 1 

1 


1 3 

5 w 

M 

33 

3 


s 

s 
a 


I i3 

1 "0 

I I 

33 

3 
< 
— 

3 


= 3 
o w 

li 

i 

n 

3 

5 

o 


i i lis s s 

i 1 s? g i t o 

1 > E = S s 1 

I 1 5 £ B a -• 

s 1 I Q £ 

1 1 
i 

< 


2 S 

1 e; 

S tj 

% % 

ll 

33 

3 
O 

< 


i§ 

R r- 
J o 

£ 5" 

5 5 
5 -0 

2 1 
1 1 

3 

31 

3 


B 

3 


1 ? i 5 
M5I 

z s 

1 

1 


illil 

iliii 

g? | I ' % 

IPII 

t a r§ 


H 

a 


- 


en 




1. 




en 

I 


< 


s 


■D 






W 

-( 






£ 






3 
CQ 






o 




3 




3 


% 


CO 






"D 


















9 








33 
T3 


■o 


1 

s 








*J 






w 






















s 
































































« 








=1 






























3 








3 




































































' 




































> 


S 




o 




o 


en 

•o 




> 

c 
o 




> 

C 


> 

C 


= 


> 


O* 






£" 


> 
a 




? 




V 




•si 


V 




s 




M 


V 


M 


ea 


^ 






•*J 


n 

3. 








o 

8 




O 

c 


8 

O 




8 

5 




i 


o 

8 


O 

8 


§ 


§ 






£ 


s 

a 








c_ 




Z 


2 




O 




in 


W 


> 

c 


z 


g: 






o 


3 
n 

E S 
o 


s 


> 




a 




< 


< 




" 




■o 




*> 


■? 


ro 






9 






































£> 






o 




o 
o 

o 


o 

8 




i 




8 

o 


o 

8 


i 


i 


o 
o 
o 






i 




s 




s 




a 


o 




2 




2 


z 
o 

< 


O 


c 

3 


> 

TJ 






Tl 


> 


3 










ro 










- 


ro 


u 


03 


(3 






W 


g. 

Q. 




o 




o 




i 


i 




ro 




1 


i 


8 

O 


8 

O 


8 






8 

o 


1 


£ 




i 




£ 


U 




t-i 




? 


o 
^i 


M 


M 


-*J 






? 


el 

i! 






















E 














li 








































































re 


> 

C 
B 

6 






o 




E 
b 


E 
6 




1 




Tl 

8 


1 

8 


-n 

o 
o 


CO 

1 
ro 


g 

? 

V 
ro 

8 

o 






a 


1 






































do 






































c o 


5 


o 




O 




o 


CO 

o 




o 




O 


8 


8 


-J 
tn 


" 






Ol 


o5 I 

it 






































oV. 


2 


en 








> 


tn 








£ 


c- 


E 


*T1 


-n 






■? 


3 D 


















3 








•< 












XJ < 




o 








o 


o 




O 




o 


" 


6 


O 


c 






o 


CD D 






































O-V" 



Source: Department of Public Works 



35 



Attachment III 
Page 2 of 3 



o 




o 
o 

1 


o 

1 


© 

z 


1 


o 
z 




D 


8 

e 


- 

z 


o 

e 


I 


9«- 
3- 2. 

3 Cf 


1 1 f I •■ 

»lsil 
lilll 

iif i 

s s i s, 
ill 


en 
£ 5- 

? 3 

S w 

- ex 

I 

s 

s 

3 

O 

EL 

Ed 


CD 

y t 

£ 5 

s 5 

■ "0 

a 

3 

< 
| 

3 


S f 2 8 • 

| 1 5 i 1 

si $9 | 

S o B & S 
S .5 S N 

5 ? X 
j | 

a B 

5 s 
s » 

s 


o 

? i 
i 5 

5 J 
5 03 

? 
a 

13 

3 
3 
33 

3 


s I 

[» 

5 S 

5 5 

s R 

1 

t 

1 


o 

«t 

iU 

i "0 

il 

i 

3 
D 

3 

€ 

3 
13 


Q. 

w 

cp 

s 

£ 

5' 

i 

3" 

a 

33 


•n 

l; 

• "0 

s ! 

1 * 

s - 

3) 

1 

3 


3 | j 

| ■= s 

| 6 1 

I? 

M 

» 5 


| 

5 
U 

X 

1 

a 

B 

-.- 

Lfl 
1 


E. C> * - 

1 1 •> 1 

S m 33 

i i 

£ 0) 

1 

■ 

33 


1 a 

6 §• 

c i 

S| 

S 

3 

o 
j 
,3 

T3 

3 


1 1 i e l ■ i i $ i r 

I n I?? is hi 

*5 1 f 5 II * S -I 

1 1 f M 1 1 1 ! 1 1 

■ 


il? 

i i 

» s 

1 

i 


• 








I 
















ft 
















1 


E 


5 










2 

c 

! 


■ 

! 








t 
































> 


en 














I 






fr 


> 


<_ 


£ 


£ 


* 


■ 
6 


1 


•D 




P 




4 


& 




6 


| 

6 


3 

6 


i 


1 


a 

a. 
































1 
































a 


O 

o 


i 


O 

6 




o 




w 

o 


In 

o 


H 

9 
■D 

o 




n 

c 

- 

B 


M 
6 




c 
I 
o 


1 

6 


- o 

5 S 
o 


z 
o 


s 


z 




s 




g 


p 


g 




s 


§ 


> 

& 


t 


k 


> 
■ 




> 






o 




o 


o 


a 




s 


o 


o 




o 


































a 
































































P4 


2 


a 


p 




«* 




«A 


o 


v» 




i = 


8 


4* 


w 


9 


ii 


B 


£ 


2 




£ 




2 


£ 


£ 




< 


£ 


E 


£ 


£ 


3 ? 

If 






























































-i 


































c 


c 


c_ 




c_ 




(_ 










2 


8 


en 




»*^ 


a 


3 


3 




3 




§ 


? 


< 




? 


s 


■D 


T? 


5 


o 


O 


o 




O 




o 




o 




o 


e 




O 




































































-.. 
































o o 


































































5 


s 


o 




o 




o 


o 


o 




s 


5 


o 


o 


O 


{1 
































s* 


$ 


> 


£ 




£ 




* 


£ 


£ 




£ 


£ 


* 


■ 


Tl 


3 a 










*< 


















? 


O" 








o 




c 




o 


o 


o 




o 

N 


© 




o 


o 


O 3 

a- 



36 



Attachment III 
Page 3 of 3 





o 




o 


o 


o 






o 
5 


o 


o 


O 




o 






o 


o 


9c 


*- 


CO 




e 


2 


u 








i 


o 


£ 




s 








1 


a 2- 

re C7 


2 


a 




< 


D 


dT 






Q 


en 


o 


2 


M 


■D 


_ M 




o 


E 




si 

< 

| 

3 

3J 

3 
O 


5 £ 

B w 

I J 
1 

3 

3) 

3 
O 

< 


1 £ r B Q 

pi ! 

1 f n j g i 

1 ? I i 1 1 

ff iff | 

5 1 1 i 
1 i 


o O 
5 3 
= - 

i 

33 


I s 

2 en 

1 ■" 

Si 

I 2- 

3 


Cft © 

f s 

| s. 

S 3 
S P- 

T3 
| 

3 

z> 
o 

5' 

3 


Q 
| 


I Q 
g 1 
I j 

I o 

B < 
s z 

1 8 


vl 

5 3 


o 

i o * 

a S en 
f i§ 

ill 

I 


I g i 

■n z — 

| S en 

i is 

» i § 
ill 

ill 

33 

a 


n ^ 
= en 

1 i 

5 1 
1* - 

- 3J 

3 
O 

< 

o 

3 


i 

Cl 


8 en 

E J 

5 ■ 

o 3 

s I 

I i 

5 1 

3 


i I 
g | 

I! 

1 S 


I 


B 3 

1 1 

■ en 

a c 

i S 
1 £ 

? -o 
1 § 
5 1 

3 


I si 

£ = 

1 1; 

5 i 

3 

3] 
o 


H 


O 

3 
"0 

3- 

s 


3 


=• i 


O 
5' 

3 


6" 

3 


| 


5 
I 


3 

o 

< 

5' 


3 






■o 

3" 


l " 




23 

3 
O 


3 
TJ 


5" 


< 










■o 
S 






3 


s 














3 










































> 


en 


-n 




■n 


c_ 


c_ 






O 


o 


2 


z 




o 






o 


in 


Q. 






































n 

3. 


■9 


cr 




cr 




a 










< 














■o 


o 


6 




b 


6 


6 






b 


o 


6 


b 




o 






~ 








































5 
re 

a 






































a 


O 


s 




£ 


■n 


■n 
cr 






3 


a 


a 


D 




z 






z 


O 


n g 


b 


6 




b 


6 


o 






6 


o 


6 


b 




6 






b 


6 










































































o 






































■* 


Z 


> 




> 


z 








■n 


■n 


e_ 






□ 






□ 


2 


> 


§ 


•D 




"D 




8 






cr 


cr 


s 


3 




o 










i 


6 


b 




b 


o 


6 






b 


o 


o 


b 




o 






b 


6 






































a 






































el 


M 


<A 






«A 








M 










£ 






M 


M 


1? 
1 S 


£ 


ro 




I 


s 


2 
> 






£ 


Z 
> 


— 


z 
> 




o 

CO 

2 






I 


2 






































§2 






































"E 


c 


c 




c 


S 


S 






> 


> 

■D 


2 


£ 




ti 






-n 


<_ 


z 








3 


























cr 




H 


o 


o 




b 


© 


6 






b 


O 


o 


o 




o 






b 


6 


T3 






































o o 






































c o 


o 


o 




o 


o 


o 






6 


CD 

o 


o 


5 




S 






o 


ro 
o 


5 2 
II 






































o 


c_ 


z 




O 


en 


a 






> 


O 


c 






2 






£- 


£ 


§ 5 
3 a 










•^ 


•o 






, 






T3 










3 




T3 < 


8 


6 




b 


o 


o 






b 


o 


Q 


b 




6 






b 


6 


a 3i 
a 



37 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 9 -01-0221 
Department: 

Item: 



Description: 



Health Services System (HSS) 
Department of Human Resources (DHR) 

Resolution establishing the monthly contribution amount 
to be made to the Health Service Trust Fund by the City 
and County of San Francisco, the San Francisco Unified 
School District, and the San Francisco Community 
College District for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. 

The proposed resolution would establish the dollar 
amount of the employer's contribution to be made to the 
Health Service Trust Fund by the City and County of San 
Francisco (City), the San Francisco Unified School 
District (SFUSD), and the San Francisco Community 
College District (SFCCD) for FY 2001-2002. 

The Health Services Board and the City i and County 
Health Services System, as required by Charter Sections 
A8.423 and A8.428, have surveyed the ten most populous 
counties in the State, excluding San Francisco, to 
determine the average dollar contribution made by these 
counties toward each employee's medical care insurance, 
excluding dental and optical care insurance. 

In accordance with the Charter, this resolution would 
establish the FY 2001-2002 monthly contribution rate for 
health care insurance to be paid by the City, the SFUSD, 
and the SFCCD, at $213.93 per month ($2,567.16 
annually) for each eligible, active employee, based on the 
survey results of the average payment made by the ten 
most populous counties in California (excluding San 
Francisco) as shown in the following table of most to least 
populous county: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

38 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Average Contributed 

County Monthly Amount 

Los Angeles $230.53 

San Diego 168.26 

Orange 287.37 

Santa Clara 208.44 

San Bernadino 208.84 

Riverside 201.74 

Alameda 191.53 

Sacramento 227.92 

Contra Costa 191.31 

Fresno 223.32 

Total $2,139.26 

Average $213.93 

According to HSS, the ten-county survey for FY 2001- 
2002 indicates that the average employer contribution of 
the ten most populous counties in California (excluding 
San Francisco) is $213.93 per month ($2,567.16 annually) 
per employee, excluding dental and optical care 
insurance. The City's current FY 2000-2001 contribution 
is $192.23 monthly ($2,306.76 annually) per employee. 
The proposed resolution would establish $213.93 as the 
monthly per employee contribution to be made in FY 
2001-2002 by the City, SFUSD, and SFCCD for the health 
insurance costs of their employees. The proposed monthly 
rate of $213.93 ($2,567.16 annually) for FY 2001-2002 
represents an increase of $21.70 per month or 
approximately 11.3 percent from the $192.23 monthly 
rate currently contributed in FY 2000-2001. 

Comments: 1. The proposed 11.3 percent increase exceeds the 6.3 

percent increase from FY 1999-2000 to FY 2000-2001 and 
is the most substantial proposed increase in the monthly 
contribution since FY 1991-1992 when it was 14.4 
percent. During the last decade, the annual survey of the 
other counties has indicated average contributions that 
increased minimally in most years and even decreased in 
FY 1995-1996 and FY 1996-1997. According to Mr. Bart 
Duncan of HSS, the significant proposed increase for FY 
2001-2002 reflects the rising cost of health care coverage. 

2. As previously noted, the City's contribution for health 
care coverage in FY 2001-2002 is equal to the average 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

39 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



contribution of the ten most populous counties in 
California, excluding San Francisco, as determined by an 
HSS survey taken in January 2001. Given that the 
surveyed counties may subsequently increase or decrease 
their actual contributions for FY 2001-2002, San 
Francisco's contribution may, in fact, be greater or less 
than the actual average contributions to be provided by 
the ten counties in FY 2001-2002. However, because HSS 
is required by the Charter to collect the comparative data 
in January of each year, HSS is not able to set its FY 
2001-2002 rates based on the final FY 2001-2002 rates of 
the other ten surveyed counties. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 3 - File 01-0315 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Ordinance appropriating $1,203,219 of Emergency- 
Medical Services Appropriation (EMSA) funds, to provide 
emergency physician services to indigent persons, to the 
Department of Public Health for Fiscal Year 2000-2001. 

$1,203,219 

Proposition 99 Tobacco Tax funds 

The State Department of Health Services established the 
California Healthcare for Indigents Program (CHIP) in 
1989 to provide counties with funds to pay for medical 
services for indigent persons who are ineligible for other 
private or public health care programs. CHIP is funded 
by Proposition 99 Tobacco Tax money. The counties use 
CHIP funds to reimburse (a) participating County and 
non-County hospitals for uncompensated inpatient, 
outpatient, and emergency services provided to indigent 
persons, and (b) participating private physicians and 
dentists for uncompensated emergency, obstetric, 
pediatric, and dental services provided to indigent 
persons. 

The State has provided the City with Proposition 99 
Tobacco Tax funds for CHIP since 1989. In FY 2000-2001, 
the State allocated the City $4,826,945, or $511,070 more 
than the $4,315,875 allocated in FY 1999-2000. This 
subject appropriation of $1,203,219 supplements the 
previously allocated FY 2000-2001 funding of $4,826,945 
to $6,030,164, an increase of approximately 24.9 percent. 
This supplement will provide the City with additional 
monies needed to pay for emergency services provided by 
private physicians and dentists to indigent San Francisco 
residents who cannot afford to pay for such services. 
These funds are administered by DPH which is 
responsible for the local CHIP Physician Program. 






BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

41 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Proposed Expenditure 
of Subject 

Appropriation: The subject appropriation of $1,203,219 would be 

expended as follows: 



Expenditure Category FY 2000-2001 Budget 

Funding for emergency services provided by private physicians and $1,082,897 

dentists to indigent residents of San Francisco 

Lifemark Corporation fiscal intermediary services to administer 120.322 

expenditure of CHIP funds (see Comment No. 4) 

TOTAL: $1,203,219 



Comments: 



1. DPH administers the local CHIP Physician Program 
which pays for emergency, obstetric, pediatric, and dental 
services 1 delivered to indigent San Francisco residents. 
Many of these services are provided to indigent persons 
by emergency room physicians at six hospitals including 
California Pacific Medical Center, Chinese Hospital, 
Davies Medical Center, St. Francis Hospital, St. Luke's 
Hospital, and St. Mary's Hospital. With increased 
diversion from SFGH's emergency room, these private 
hospitals have been seeing increasing numbers of indigent 
patients. 

2. As noted above, since 1989 the CHIP Physician 
Program has received State funding from Proposition 99 
Tobacco Tax revenues. However, over the past several 
years the State has been redirecting Proposition 99 
Tobacco Tax revenues to other programs, thereby 
substantially reducing such funding for the CHIP 
Physician Program. As a result, by FY 1999-2000 the 
CHIP Physician Program pay-out ratio for claims from 
private physician and dental providers had dropped to 
between 20 to 25 percent of the physicians' and dentists' 
charges. According to Mr. Jeffrey Leong of DPH, some 
physicians and the majority of dentists have left the CHIP 



1 The CHIP Physician Program provides free dental care to children who receive physical health 
examinations through the Child Health and Disability Prevention Program. Due to CHIP Physician 
Program rate reductions, private San Francisco dentists have left the program, thereby increasing 
referrals to the City's dental clinics which are nearing capacity. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

42 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Physician Program because of the low reimbursement 
rates. Since low CHIP Physician Program reimbursement 
rates for indigent care provided by private emergency 
room physicians and dentists is a State-wide problem, the 
State Legislature passed Senate Bill 2132 which became 
law on September 28, 2000, appropriating additional 
Proposition 99 Tobacco Tax funding for the CHIP 
Physician Program. 

3. The subject appropriation, which would allocate an 
additional $1,082,897 to be used to reimburse private 
physicians and dentists, would allow the CHIP Physician 
Program to pay private physicians and dentists at a level 
closer to 50 percent of their charges (instead of the 
previously paid reimbursements of between 20 to 25 
percent), the maximum allowable under the program. 
According to Mr. Leong, the $1,082,897 in reimbursement 
funding would be paid not only to private physicians and 
dentists working in the six hospitals listed above, but also 
to other private physicians and dentists enrolled in the 
CHIP Physician Program who provided obstetric, 
pediatric, and dental services to indigent San Francisco 
residents. The $1,082,897 in funds would be used for 
direct payments to private physicians and dentists. Once 
DPH is able to offer these higher reimbursements, DPH 
intends to reenroll private physician and dentist providers 
who had left the CHIP Physician Program, and to recruit 
new physician and dentist providers into the Program. 

4. The State permits up to 10 percent of the subject 
appropriation to be used to pay for administrative costs. 
Therefore, $120,322, or the maximum 10 percent 
allowable of the subject appropriation, would be allocated 
to DPH's existing professional services contract with the 
Lifemark Corporation to process medical claims for 
reimbursement from private hospitals and physicians. 
Mr. Leong states that this contract was originally 
awarded to Medicus Systems Corporation under a 
Request for Proposals issued in May 28, 1993. Through 
subseouent mergers, Medicus Systems Corporation 
became the Lifemark Corporation. The contract has been 
regularly renewed since that initial award. The subject 
appropriation of $120,322 to the Lifemark Corporation 
would: 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

43 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



(a) Provide the Lifemark Corporation with an additional 
$19,279 to pay for FY 2000-2001 claims processing in 
addition to the $139,797 for FY 2000-2001 already 
allocated to Lifemark Corporation for claims 
processing under its existing professional services 
contract. 

(b) Replace the existing allocation of $101,043 for the 
Lifemark Corporation contained in the CHIP Other 
County Health Services Subaccount with $101,043 
from the CHIP Emergency Medical Services 
Appropriation (EMSA) Program. Although both the 
CHIP Other County Health Services Subaccount and 
the EMSA Program are funded by Proposition 99 
Tobacco Tax monies, the allocation of CHIP Other 
County Health Services funds is discretionary 
whereas the allocation of EMSA funds is limited to 
reimbursement to private physicians and dentists. 
Therefore, Mr. Leong states that the EMSA Program, 
instead of the CHIP Other County Health Services 
Subaccount, is the appropriate source to pay for the 
administrative costs of the CHIP Physician Program 
claims processed by the Lifemark Corporation. The 
proposed transfer would assign $101,043 of the costs 
of Lifemark Corporation claims processing to the 
EMSA Program, while releasing $101,043 to the 
discretionary CHIP Other County Health Services 
Subaccount. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

44 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 4 - File 00-2187 

Note: This item was continued to the Call of the Chair by the Finance Committee 
at its meeting of February 7, 2001. 



Department: 
Item: 

Contract Term: 
Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Resolution authorizing the Director of Public Health and 
the Purchaser to execute a contract between the City and 
County of San Francisco and Health Advocates, LLP to 
provide uncompensated care recovery services. 

March 1, 2001 through December 31, 2002 (approximately 
22 months). 

Uncompensated care recovery services include the 
assistance to complete Supplemental Security Income 
(SSI) and Medi-Cal eligibility applications on behalf of 
DPH patients, and representation and legal assistance for 
patients in SSI fair hearings and appeals, for the purpose 
of collecting unpaid inpatient hospital bills for DPH 
services that are provided to indigent patients. The 
proposed resolution would authorize DPH to enter into a 
contract with Health Advocates, LLP (HA), a private 
contractor, to provide an uncompensated care recovery 
program. 

The DPH issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) in 
September of 2000, and received the following two bids in 
response to its RFP: (1) Health Advocates, LLP for 
$1,180,000 each contract year and, (2) Paralign for 
$1,090,000 each contract year. Attachment I, provided by 
Ms. Monique Zmuda from the DPH, indicates that the bid 
amounts were based on estimated annual revenue of 
$6,000,000, which has since been reduced to $5,800,000. 
Ms. Zmuda further advises in Attachment I that HA 
reduced its bid by $90,000 to $1,090,000 each contract 
year, the same amount bid by Paralign, after negotiations 
with the DPH. According to Ms. Zmuda, HA was selected 
based on the DPH's evaluation of the established criteria, 
which awards points based on recent relevant experience, 
the scope of work to be performed, the quality of past 
projects and cost. Ms. Zmuda states that the DPH also 
required the bidder to provide these services by multi- 
lingual and multi-cultural staff. Ms. Zmuda further 
states that the DPH also built in additional services into 
the scope of work, including following up on treatment 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

45 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



authorization requests, and incurring the cost of re-billing 
for services provided, once the clients have been made 
eligible for Medi-Cal. 

According to Ms. Zmuda, the DPH has contracted out 
uncompensated care recovery services since 1988 to help 
supplement in-house efforts on uncompensated care 
recovery services. Ms. Zmuda advises that San Francisco 
General Hospital (SFGH) has an internal staff of ten 
Hospital Eligibility Workers to assist SFGH patients in 
identifying financial resources to pay for inpatient 
hospitalization for which no source of funding is currently 
available. Eligibility determination, which is provided by 
DPH personnel, and authorized by the City's Department 
of Human Services, typically includes assistance in 
applying for Medi-Cal or SSI, and making appropriate 
third-party claims. The contractor will handle those cases 
which the internal DPH eligibility workers have deemed 
"unreimburseable," usually involving former inpatients 
who have been discharged form SFGH. These 
uncompensated care services include identifying financial 
resources to pay for the care provided, field work on 
behalf of indigent patients, such as visits to homeless 
shelters; assistance in obtaining further medical 
treatments or evaluations, as necessary; efforts to locate 
former inpatients whose addresses are not known, and 
patient advocacy and representation in appealing denials 
of benefits to administrative agencies. 

Based on a prior year actual recovery from contracting 
this service, Ms. Zmuda advises that the DPH was paid 
approximately $5,800,000 a year, or approximately 
$483,333 a month from making indigent patients eligible 
for third-party payment. The DPH anticipates the same 
level of annual reimbursement to be made under the 
proposed contract period. 

The proposed subject contract would only pay the 
contractor a percentage of the revenues actually collected, 
on behalf of the City, according to the following schedule: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

46 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Cumulative Revenues Generated Contingency Fees 

Each Contract Year Paid to the Contractor 

$0 to$l. 999.999 NET 20 percent 

$2 million to$2. 999.999 NET 18 percent 

$3 million and above NET 16 percent 

"NET" is used to describe the actual cash received by 
SFGH as opposed to any unique program determinations 
of allowable amounts and the deduction of contractual 
allowances. In accordance with the contract provisions, 
HA would be paid a varying fee by the DPH based on the 
percentage of the revenues collected by the contractor. 

Comments: 1. As indicated above, the proposed contract would 

extend for the 22-month period from March 1, 2001 
through December 31, 2002. According to Ms. Zmuda, 
DPH expects to realize approximately $10,633,333 in 
additional revenues under this 22-month contract, with 
the contractor to be paid an estimated $1,884,667, or an 
overall average of 17.72 percent of the revenue collected, 
for net estimated revenues to the City of $8,748,667 for 
the term of the 22-month contract. Attachment II, 
provided by DPH, highlights the estimated revenue and 
contingency fees associated with the subject contract 
agreement. As mentioned above, the actual contingency 
fees paid to HA will depend on the revenue realized 
during the contract period. 

2. The proposed subject resolution authorizes the 
Director of Public Health and the Purchaser to make 
amendments to the subject contract, if needed. According 
to Ms. Zmuda, this is a standard provision in all of the 
DPH's contracts, which allows the DPH to make minor 
changes, such as including an additional scope of work 
requirement or extending a contract for a few months 
while an RFP is in process, but not change the intent of 
the original contract. 

3. On January 31, 2000 the Human Rights Commission 
(HRC) issued a report to the Finance Committee 
pertaining to the Department of Public Health (DPH) 
Request for Proposal Process #17-2000: Uncompensated 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

47 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Care Recovery Services (Attachment III). The HRC 
concluded: 

"There was a general consensus among the panelists that 
Health Advocates submitted a superior proposal. In 
addition, DPH conducted a well organized and 
documented RFP process. However, ... it is extremely 
important to avoid even the appearance of bias in these 
procurements. In this regard, HRC believes that there 
were several flaws in the process. 

First, none of the panel members should have had any 
recent dealings with either proposer. Second, the partial 
reference checks of only one proposer should not have 
been given to the panelists. If reference checks were 
shared with the panelists at all, then full and complete 
checks for both the panelists should have been included. 
Finally, the letter of recommendation from the domestic 
partner of the CFO (of the DPH's Community Health 
Network) should not have been included in Health 
Advocate's proposal. Whether or not Health Advocates 
knew of the relationship, the sender must certainly have 
been aware of the conflict of interest and should have 
refrained. 

There is no evidence to show that these flaws influenced 
the outcome of the evaluation process in any significant 
way. However, HRC believes that the most equitable 
resolution to this RFP would be to convene another panel 
to reassess the two previously submitted proposals, 
removing the letter from the CFO's domestic partner from 
that of Health Advocates." 

4. At the Finance Committee Meeting on February 7, 
2001, the DPH agreed to follow the suggestions in the 
HRC report to (1) convene a new panel to review the 
proposals from Health Advocates and Paralign; (2) 
remove the letter of recommendation from the domestic 
partner of the CFO of the DPH's Community Health 
Network from the Health Advocates' proposal; and, (3) not 
conduct reference checks as part of the scoring of the two 
proposals by the new panel. According to Ms. Zmuda, the 
DPH convened a new panel on February 13, 2000 to 
review the two proposals. The new panel consisted of the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

48 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Tax Collector's Director of the Bureau of Delinquent 
Revenue Collection, the Billing Director of the 
Community Mental Health Services and DPH Mental 
Health Plan, the Admitting and Eligibility Manager for 
San Francisco General Hospital and the Director of 
Patient Financial Services and Admissions for Laguna 
Honda Hospital. Ms. Zmuda advises that in addition to 
the members of the panel cited above, the review panel 
included an HRC Analyst as an observer. Ms. Zmuda 
further advises that the panel reviewed the two proposals 
and Health Advocates' proposal received a score of 76.81 
points or 18.56 more points than Paralign, which received 
58.25 points (see Attachment IV, provided by the DPH, 
for the rating results). Therefore, the Health Commission 
has recommended that the contract be awarded to Health 
Advocates. Ms. Zmuda advises that Paralign appealed 
the panel's decision on February 21, 2001, claiming that 
there was a violation of the bidding and selection process 
guidelines. According to Ms. Zmuda, the DPH denied 
Paralign's appeal on February 28, 2001, finding no 
violation of the DPH's bidding and selection process 
guidelines. 

5. Page one, line sixteen of the proposed resolution 
incorrectly states the contract period is, "for the period of 
March 1, 2001 through December 31, 2002." Since the 
commencement date of March 1, 2001 has now passed, 
the proposed resolution should now state that the contract 
period is "for the period beginning with the date of 
contract certification through December 31, 2002." 
Therefore, the proposed resolution should be amended to 
reflect the new contract period. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to correct page one, 

line sixteen of the subject resolution, which states "for the 
period of March 1. 2001 through December 31, 2002," to 
read, "for the period beginning with the date of contract 
certification through December 31, 2002," in accordance 
with Comment 5 above. 

2. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

49 



DEC-20-2000 14: 13 pf?Qn DPH-CFO 



City and County of San Francisco 



TO HARUEY ROSE 



Attachment I 




Dale: 
Memo To: 

From: 

Re: 



Department of Public Health 

Mitchell H. Katz, M.D. 
Director of Health 



December 20, 2000 

Harvey Rose 
Budget Analyst 

Monique Zmuda \ r y> 
Chief Financial Officer 

Proposed Contract with Health Advocates, LLP 



This memo is in response to questions regarding the proposed contract with Health 
Advocates LLP, to provide uncompensated care recovery reimbursement services for the 
Community Health Network of the Department of Public Health. 

The following summarizes the RFP Process: 



Date RFP Issued: 
Selection Made: 



September 29, 2000 
November 21, 2000 



Number of Bidders: 2- Both profit-making private firms 

Bid Amounts: Both firms were requested to bid on services for revenue recovery of S6 
million annually. Although the bid from Health Advocates was 590,000 higher than the 
other qualified bidder, Health Advocates had a higher score, and thus was awarded the 
contract In contract negotiations with Health Advocates, the Department was successful 
in securing a reduction equivalent to $90,000 in the contract rate for the services. 



(415) 554-2600 



101 Grove Street 
50 



f tl«n«m« nd Pali 

San Francisco, CA &4102 



, ufcu- ao~aaaA 14 : ia 



FROM 



TO HARUEY ROSE 



Attachment II 



-— 3 

C C 

O c 

O g 



CO 

£• 

CD 



tt> 



c 

CD 

> 
CO 

cr 



CD 

o 

cu 



Q. 

E 
o 



3 






ra 


CM 4) 


02 


f> > 


en 


— Q 


o>* 


o>-£ 


CO 


a ra 


C) 


O T3 
5= c: 


v> 


= ro 


_c 


O O 


en 


2 ° 


3 


O o 


E 


o" o" 




o o 


— 


O O 


o 


cm" erf 


<«- 


t«- *<> 


5? 


5? 5? 


o 


03 o 



Ul 



TOTftL P. 03 



51 



City and County of San Francisco 




Willie Lewis Brown, Jr. 
Mayor 



nttduiimenL ill 
,-,. . . Page 1 o£ 6. 

Human Rights Commission 

Contract Compliance 

Dispute Resolution/Fair Housing 

Minority/Women/Local Business Enterprise 

Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & HIV Discrimination 

Virginia M. Harmon 
Interim Director 



MEMORANDUM 

Date: January 31 st , 2001 

To: Honorable Members of the Finance Committee 

Through: Virginia Harmon 

Interim Director, HRC 

From: Diana Rathbone 

Senior Contract Compliance Officer, HRC 

Subject: Department of Public Health (DPH) Request for Proposal U 17-2000: 

Uncompensated Care Recovery Services 



At its regular meeting on January 17 th , 2001, the Finance Committee of the Board of Supervisors 
asked the Human Rights Commission to look into the selection process for the above referenced 
contract and to ensure its impartiality. 

This report is a response to that request. It includes a brief contract history, followed by a 
summary of normal selection procedures for professional services contracts. These procedures 
are then compared with those on this contract, with special reference to potential problem areas 
raised at the Finance Committee meeting. 

BACKGROUND 

In September, 2000, DPH issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for uncompensated care 
recovery services. The purpose of this RFP was to hire a contractor to assist DPH in collecting 
unpaid inpatient hospital bills for services that are provided to indigent patients. Such services 
include, for example, completing Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medi-Cal eligibility 
applications on behalf of patients, and representing them at SSI fair hearings and appeals. 

Two proposals were received in response to the RFP, one from the incumbent, Paralign, and the 
other from a new contractor called Health Advocates. 

The proposals were rated by an expert panel and Health Advocates received the highest score. 
When Paralign was notified that it had not been selected, it filed an appeal with DPH, which 
DPH overruled. The Health Commission then voted to award the contract to Health Advocates 
at its meeting on December 12 th , 2000 and, because the contract involves incoming revenues to 



25 Van Ness Avenue 

Suite BOO 

San Francisco 

California 94102-6033 



TEL (415) 252-2500 

FAX (415) 431-5764 

TDD (415) 252-2550 

httpJ/www.sfhumanrights.org 



52 



h 



Page 2 of 6 



Finance Committee, Board of Supervisors 
January 31", 2001 



the City in excess of SI million, it was forwarded to the Board of Supervisors Finance 
Committee for its approval. 

Paralign has filed an application for a temporary restraining order and a motion for a preliminary 
injunction in the United States District Court for Northern California. The court has agreed to 
continue the date of this motion until the Board of Supervisors awards the contract. 

CONTRACT SELECTION PROCEDURES 

The City has two distinct processes for the selection of contractors. They are variously described 
in Chapters 6 and 12D.A of the San Francisco Administrative Code. 

Construction Contracts. Construction contracts are put out to bid and the contract is awarded 
to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. 

Professional Services Contracts. Professional services contracts are awarded using an RFP 
process. The aim of the RFP is to select the company which will provide the highest level of 
service (i.e., which proposer will design the most beautiful and functional hospital; which 
proposer will provide accounting services in the most efficient and timely manner; which 
proposer will create the most user friendly and reliable computer software program). 

On many professional services contracts, particularly, architecture and engineering contracts, the 
quality of the work being proposed is the over-riding factor and, in those cases, fees are 
submitted, if they are submitted at all, in a separate, sealed envelope. In this way, the department 
has a starting point for cost negotiations with the successful contractor, but the panel is not 
influenced by questions of money. 

On other contracts, as in the one before you, price may be an issue, and in these cases, it will be 
evaluated along with all other aspects of the proposal. However, price will never be the 
determining factor. If it were the determining factor, there would be no need to issue an RFP and 
the contract would be awarded to the lowest bidder, as if it were a construction contract. 

Although every effort is made to keep the RFP process as objective as possible, it is, compared 
to the bidding process used for construction contracts, a more subjective approach. Therefore, 
every effort has to be made to document and to ensure the fairness of the selection procedures at 
each stage of the process, and to eliminate any possible suggestion of bias. 



A TYPICAL SELECTION PROCESS. 

RFP. The first step is for the department to issue an RFP. It should spell out exactly what the 
department is looking for, including clearly defined minimum qualifications and the types of 
information that should be included in the proposal. The RFP should also contain specific 
evaluation criteria, with predetermined points assigned to each criteria, so that proposers will 
understand how they are going to be scored. 



53 



Attachment III 
fage j ot 6 



Finance Committee, Board of Supervisors 
January 31", 2001 



On a typical contract, if points are assigned to the price, these points will be assessed using a 
predetermined formula based on the lowest price. 

Preproposal Meeting and Questions. A pre-proposal meeting is held to answer the questions 
of potential proposers. Minutes are taken and are then distributed to all potential proposers, both 
those present at the meeting and those who have expressed interest in the RFP but who are not at 
the meeting. In addition, answers to any phone questions provided by the department to any 
interested proposer are provided by mail to all interested proposers. 

Panel. The department selects a panel, normally composed of three or more members, to 
evaluate the proposals. Panelists must possess appropriate expertise to evaluate the contract in 
question and the panel as a whole must reflect the ethnic and gender diversity of San Francisco. 
HRC strongly recommends that at least one panel member be recruited from outside the 
department, and one from outside the City, to ensure impartiality. However, this is not a 
requirement. 

No panel members should be involved in the preparation of the RFP in question, or in the 
planned future management of the contract. Additionally, no panel members should have a 
previous professional or personal relationship with any of the proposers. 

Panel Orientation. The panel will normally receive an orientation prior to commencing its 
work. The point of the orientation is to answer any questions the panelists may have, and to 
provide rules to ensure an equitable process. For example, it is inappropriate for any panel 
member to attempt to influence the score of another panel member, to indicate by body language 
during an oral interview an opinion of the presentation in progress, to score a written proposal on 
anything other than the information contained within the proposal, or to give an oral interview of 
one hour, with one set of questions, to one proposer, and ten minutes, with a completely different 
set of questions, to another. 

Scoring Written Proposals. 

Once the proposals have been received, a copy of each one is sent to the panelists, after which, a 
meeting is normally convened to score the written proposals. The HRC's Rules and Regulations, 
pursuant to Chapter 12.D.A of the San Francisco Administrative Code (the Minority, Woman 
and Locally Owned Business (M/W/LBE) Ordinance) encourage departments to prohibit any 
discussion at all among panelists, other than for points of clarification and follow up, allowing 
each panelist to score each proposal and interview according to his or her individual assessment. 
However, this is not a requirement. 

Oral Interviews. 

Once the proposals have been evaluated, the department usually creates a shortlist of the top 
scorers, and these firms are then invited to an oral interview in front of the same panelists. All 
proposers should be asked the same questions, each interview should be scored according to 



54 



Page 4 of 6 



Finance Committee, Board of Supervisors 
January 31*, 2001 



predetermined evaluation criteria and points and all interviews should take the same amount of 
time. Again, HRC discourages discussion among the panelists, other than for points of 
clarification and follow up, but this is not a requirement. 

Negotiations and Contract Award. 

At the conclusion of the selection process, the department enters into discussions with the firm 
which submitted the highest rated proposal. At this point, everything in the proposal, including 
the price, is open to negotiation. 

Once those negotiations are successfully completed, the contract is ready for award. If the 
negotiations break down, the department will open negotiations with the second highest scorer, 
and so on, until it has a successful contractor. 

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCESS USED IN THIS REP 

General. 

DPH, for the most part, followed the procedures outlined above. It is perhaps worth noting that, 
during the evaluation of the written proposals, the panel was allowed to discuss the responses to 
each of the evaluation criteria, prior to scoring that criteria according to the predetermined 
points. Notes were kept of these discussions, and these were later typed up and sent to each 
panel member for review. While HRC prefers that no discussion take place, such a practice is 
not prohibited, and there is nothing in either the notes or the scores to suggest anything other 
than a fair, thoughtful and unbiased evaluation. To the contrary, panel members report that it 
was an extremely formal selection process. 

It is DPH's practice to assign the selection process to a contract administrator. The contract 
manager, the person who will be in charge of the contract once it is awarded, is not involved in 
the development of the RFP other than to advise on the selection of panel members and to be 
present at the panel evaluations to answer technical questions. 

DPH decided not to conduct oral interviews. 



References. Paralign's proposal included very few letters of recommendation, in comparison 
with that of Health Advocates. During the panel evaluation of the written proposals, the 
contract manager asked the contract administrator if she could share the results of Paralign's 
reference checks in an effort to bolster the information in Paralign's proposal. Permission was 
granted. At that point, the contract manager had not completed Paralign's reference checks, and 
had not started on those of Health Advocates. 

The Paralign references were mixed, certainly more mixed than any letter a proposer would opt 
to include in a proposal. On the other hand, all but one of the panel members, although they 
remember the incident, do not feel that it effected their scoring one way or the other. They were 






55 



Attachment III 
Fage 5 or b 



Finance Committee, Board of Supervisors 
January 31", 2001 



more influenced by the proposal itself. The other panel member felt it had increased an already 
negative assessment of Paralign's performance under this criteria. 

No information was given to the panel regarding the outcome of Health Advocate's references, 
because they had not yet been checked. 

Bias. 

It is obviously extremely important that no panelists and no department staff involved in the RFP 
process should have any investment in its outcome that could bias the proceedings. For example, 
it is important in a contract such as this one that none of the panelists should have previously 
worked with the incumbent. However, two of the five panelists have had ongoing professional 
dealings with the incumbent in the performance of its current contract. 

In addition, the contract manager, as well as her supervisor, the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of 
DPH's Community Health network, had an existing relationship with one or other of the 
proposers. The CFO's domestic partner used to work for Health Advocates, and her letter of 
recommendation was one of those included in Health Advocate's proposal. The CFO is also 
close friends with several Paralign employees. For these reasons, when he was asked to serve on 
the panel, the CFO recused himself. However, as the contract manager's supervisor, it was also 
his job to review and sign off on all the RFP documents once the process was complete, the 
highest scorer determined and the letters of notification ready to be issued. The CFO did not 
recuse himself from this task and signed the document. 

It seems clear that the CFO, in order to avoid even the appearance of bias, should have recused 
himself from the entire process, including lending his signature to the final RFP approval. 
However, because his role was so minor, and occurred post selection, it seems clear that his 
signature could not have influenced the outcome of the process itself. Additionally, none of the 
panel members knew the name of the CFO's domestic partner, and therefore could not have been 
influenced by the presence of this letter in Health Advocate's proposal. 

The contract manager is the second person with an apparent conflict of interest. She was hired in 
July, 2000, two months before this RFP was issued, and part of her assignment was to work with 
the incumbent in the execution of its current contract. In addition, in a previous employment, 
she had hired Health Advocates to perform similar services to those requested in this RFP. 
Lastly, although she was not on the panel, she selected all but one of the panel members and she 
was present while the proposals were being scored as a technical advisor. It was in this role that 
she shared the partial references with the panel members. 

The panel members say that the contract administrator played the most important role during 
their deliberations, giving them all of their instructions. They agree that the contract manager sat 
silently, apart from reading the references and answering one or two questions. There is 
therefore no evidence, except for reading the references, that she influenced their discussions in 
any way. 



56 



Attachment III 
Page 6 of 6 



Finance Committee, Board of Supervisors 
January 31", 2001 



Bilingual Staff. This is not really an issue of procedure. The RFP required as a nu'nirnurn 
qualification that proposers must be able to "demonstrate that they have adequate staff "on 
board" as of the time of its bid, who are bilingual," that they have access to interpreters, and that 
"both on and off site staff demographics reflect the ethnically diverse patient population served 
by DPH." Panel members and DPH staff are satisfied that both proposals met these 
requirements. After reviewing the proposals, HRC concurs with this opinion. 

Price Negotiations. It was entirely normal and acceptable procedure for DPH to include the 
price submitted with the proposal in its negotiations with Health Advocates. 
At that point Paralign, because it had a lower score, was, out of the picture, and had been notified 
in writing to that effect. It would have been highly unfair to allow Paralign to modify its 
proposal in any way after the completion of a selection process in which it was the loser, with the 
idea of allowing it to get back into the competition. Only if negotiations were unsuccessful with 
the highest scorer could DPH have entered into negotiations with Paralign. 

CONCLUSION 

There was general consensus among the panelists that Health Advocates submitted a superior 
proposal. In addition, DPH conducted a well organized and documented RFP process. 
However, as mentioned above, it is extremely important to avoid even the appearance of bias in 
these procurements. In this regard, HRC believes that there were several flaws in the process. 

First, none of the panel members should have had any recent dealings with either proposer. 
Second, the partial reference checks of only one proposer should not have been given to the 
panelists. If reference checks were shared with the panelists at all, then full and complete checks 
for both the panelists should have been included. Finally, the letter of recommendation from the 
domestic partner of the CFO should not have been included in Health Advocate's proposal. 
Whether or not Health Advocates knew of the relationship, the sender must certainly have been 
aware of the conflict of interest and should have refrained. 

There is no evidence to show that these flaws influenced the outcome of the evaluation process 
in any significant way. However, HRC believes that the most equitable resolution to this RFP 
would be to convene another panel to reassess the two previously submitted proposals, removing 
the letter from the CFO's domestic partner from that of Health Advocates. 



57 



' hhb-^b-^UkJl i:>:iY 



DATE; l>Fcb-OI 



r-kOM DPH-CFO 

RFP EVALUATION - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 
RTF /: 17-20M Uncompensated C»re Recovery Serrkei 
COMPOSITE EVALUATION SCORES 



Attachment IV 



SCREENING CRITERIA: SCREENING TO BE COMPLETED BY PROGRAM & OCMC STAFP 
«\ Completion of all required forms #1-6 & Sections A-I 



b) Ability to meet the minimum qualifications 
fASS/FAU. SCORE: 



iFui 



FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN DETERMINED TO HAVE MET THE SCREENING CRITERIA ABOVE, OFFERS WILL 
BE RATED BY THE EVALUATION PANELISTS FER THE FOLLOWING EVALUATION CRITERIA 



PROPOSALS SCORED 





Heahrt Ajlroatea 


PlraLifn 






SCOPE OF WORK: LS FTS Rttitwtr 




AVG 




AVG 




AVG 






0- POOR Rl 


8 


6 






AVC 


I -5 MARGINAL R2 


11 


10 






6-10 ACCEPTABLE R3 


10 


9 






I] - 13 EXCEEDS R4 


11 


7 






RS 














1000 




1 00 




0.00 




00 


RECENT RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: 20 PTS 




AVG 




AVG 




AVG 






0- POOR Rl 


12 


7 








] .6 MARGINAL R2 


IS 
14 


12 








7 • 13 ACCEPTABLE R3 


7 








14-20 EXCEEDS R4 


14 


8 








R5 








AVG 






13 75 




1.30 




ccc 


000 


PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND; IS FTS 




AVC 




AVG 




AVG 






0. POOR RJ 


10 


7 






AVO 


1 -5 MARGINAL R2 


11 


8 






ACCEPTABLE R3 


10 


7 






xi -15 EXCEEDS R4 


11 


7 






RS 














10.50 




7.23 








QUALITY OF PAST PROJECTS! 2S FTS 






0- POOR Rl 


17 




9 












I -S MARGINAL R2 


20 




10 












9 - 17 ACCEPTABLE RS 


18 




9 












1J-25 EXCEEDS R4 


20 




10 












RS 






















AVG 




AVG 




AVG 




AVG 






11.73 




9J0 




o.oo 


000 


mBB88mBBBE3&893ggQB8niBSS&liBn 


iGf&IEb 


5E5CO? 


rtEUET?EB-B-Y^O CMC 


^^X&&&&&2^ 



RATE/rOTAI. COSTi 25 PTS. 






&VTSA *m KATBi ggjgggB 

FORMULA: ASSIGN MAXIMUM POINTS TO THE LOWEST BID RATE. FOR ALL OTHER RATES, DIVIDE EACH RATS INTO THE LOWEST RATE 

AND THEN MULTIPLY 'X'X TIMES MAXIMUM POINT. 

INTERVIEW POINTS 

SUBTOTAL: 

MBE/WBE CERTIFICATION NUMBER: 
YES or NO; IF YES. ENTER NUMBER: 

BID P»FFF»FNl-P . FOR PBnFTTOMt.V- 
10* MB£ or WBE C3 : * A above) 
5* LEE 

5* JV w/ LBE only or MBE/WB6 leu 335 
X JV w/ MBE or WBE ■ or excertfi 35*. leu 40* 
7.5* JV w/ LBE/MBE or WBE - gt wEMtiAOX but ten 51 
10HJV w/ MBE or WBE - «ex««ii5l* 





0.00 




: Mf 


coo 1 




COD 


76.81 




si a 




0.00 


0.00 


















no 


■ 














| 


1 


A 


i 





0.00 


0* 


0.00 


0* 


o.x 





coo 





o.oo 


1 


0.00 





0.00 


g 


ceo 


c 


0.00 


c 


0.00 


g 


0.00 


: 


o.oo 





0.00 





0.00 





OK 


g 


0.00 





0.00 





0.00 





o.oo 


c 


0.00 





0.00 





0.00 


: 0.00 





0.00 


















76.81 


fS.IS 


0.00 


0.00 



TCTPL P. 02 



58 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 5 - File 01-0204 



Department: 

Item: 

Location: 
Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 

Lessee: 

No. ofSq. Ft. and 
Cost Per Month: 



Rental Cost as 
Increase Over Prior 
Month-to-month 
Lease: 



Division of Real Estate (DRE) 
Public Library 

Resolution authorizing a new lease of real property at 45 
Leland Avenue for the Visitacion Branch Public Library. 

45 Leland Avenue, San Francisco 

To permit the City to lease approximately 2,300 square 
feet of the building at 45 Leland Avenue for continued use 
as the Visitacion Branch Public Library. 

Mr. Gary Chen 

City and County of San Francisco 



Approximately 2,300 square feet at $3,105 per month 
($1.35 per square foot). The base rental rate is annually 
adjustable in accordance with the Consumer Price Index 
(CPI) for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area. 
However, according to the subject lease provisions, the 
base rent would be adjusted each year by not less than 3 
percent nor more than 6 percent. 



The monthly base rent would be $3,105 ($1.35 per square 
foot), or $37,260 annually. The monthly rent of $3,105 is 
$1,052 more than the current month-to-month rental 
charge of $2,053, representing an increase of 
approximately 51.2 percent. 

An additional rental charge of approximately $580.85 per 
month (approximately $0.25 per square foot) is payable 
over the three-year term of the lease by the City to 
amortize the estimated cost of tenant improvements (see 
Comment No. 3). According to Ms. Claudine Venegas of 
DRE, the base cost of the tenant improvements are not to 
exceed $18,000 over the three-year term of the lease. 
However, under the lease, the City would pay the Lessor's 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

59 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Utilities and 
Janitorial Services: 

Term of Lease: 



Right of Renewal: 



Source of Funds: 
Description: 

Comments: 



interest costs to finance the improvements at 10 percent, 
resulting in an estimated total cost of $20,91 1. 



To be paid for by the City. 

Three years, commencing upon approval by the Board of 
Supervisors and substantial completion of leasehold 
improvements 1 , and expiring in approximately March of 
2004. In the interim, the City would continue to pay the 
current month-to-month rental rate of $2,053. 

Under the subject lease, there are month-to-month 
holdover provisions which could apply after the lease 
expires. The City would have the option to continue as a 
month-to-month tenant until such time as the Landlord 
terminates the tenancy with at least 30 days prior written 
notice of termination. The month-to-month rent payable 
would be at the monthly rent in effect during the last 
month of the lease, or at a rental rate mutually agreed 
between the DRE and the Landlord. In accordance with 
Administrative Code Section 23.26, such a mutually 
agreed rental rate could be approved by the Director of 
Property without Board of Supervisors approval so long as 
the monthly rent remains less than $5,000. 

Proposition E Public Library funding. 

The subject lease would authorize the City to enter into a 
new lease for approximately 2,300 square feet at 45 
Leland Avenue for the Visitiacion Branch Public Library. 

1. Ms. Venegas states that the City had a five-year lease 
for 45 Leland Avenue with the prior Lessor, Mr. Kenneth 
Chung, from March of 1993 until February of 1998. In 
February of 1998, the monthly rental rate was $2,053 
(approximately $0.89 per square foot). 



1 According to Section 6.1(c) of the proposed lease, "The Leasehold improvement Work shall 
be deemed to be "substantially completed" for purposes of this Lease when the Leasehold 
Improvement shall have been sufficiently completed and City, through its Director of 
Property, shall have approved the Leasehold Improvements. City may, at its option, approve 
the Leasehold Improvements even though there may remain minor details that would not 
interfere with City's use. Landlord shall diligently pursue to completion all minor details." 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
60 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

2. According to Ms. Venegas, the Public Library has 
leased 45 Leland Avenue under a month-to-month rental 
agreement with Mr. Chung since March of 1998 because 
the subject property was not compliant with the 
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and Mr. Chung 
was unprepared to meet the costs of ADA improvements. 
According to Mr. Michael Cohen of the City Attorney's 
Office, the City Attorney's Office advises City 
departments against entering into lease terms of more 
than one month for properties which are not ADA 
compliant. Until such time as the City can confirm that a 
building is fully compliant with disability access laws, 
month-to-month leases protect the City against liability, 
according to Mr. Cohen. The City's month-to-month 
rental agreement for 45 Leland Avenue has continued at 
the monthly rental rate of $2,053 under the present 
Lessor, Mr. Chen, who purchased the property in June of 
2000. Since that time, the month-to-month rent of $2,053 
has remained the same while the DRE was negotiating 
the proposed lease, according to Ms. Venegas. 

3. The subject lease provides for tenant improvements to 
be constructed by the landlord at a cost not to exceed 
$18,000 which includes (a) an estimated $7,500 for an 
electrical system upgrade to provide power for computers, 
and (b) an estimated $10,000 for a new ADA compliant 
restroom. As explained above, this would increase the 
City's rent by approximately $580.85 per month to 
amortize the construction costs to the Landlord of up to 
$18,000, plus 10 percent interest costs. Should the actual 
cost of construction be less than $18,000, the amortized 
monthly payment would be adjusted to reflect the lower 
amount. 

4. In addition, at no cost to the City, the Lessor would be 
required to complete (a) improvements to the front 
entrance to meet building code requirements, and (b) 
repairs to the roof, plaster walls, rear wall, and painted 
interior surfaces, as itemized in Section 6.1 of the subject 
lease. 

5. Ms. Venegas states that the proposed rental rate, 
which would result in an approximately 51.2 percent 
increase over the existing rental rate, represents fair 
market value. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

61 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

62 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 6 - File 00-2104 



Item: 



Description: 



Ordinance directing the Director of Property to 
create an inventory of City property that may be 
appropriate for temporary and occasional use by 
nonprofit arts and cultural organizations. 

The proposed ordinance would direct the Director of 
Property to create an inventory of spaces within 
City and City-controlled (leased) facilities that may 
be appropriate for nonprofit arts and cultural 
organizations to use for rehearsals, performances, 
exhibitions or short-term ancillary administrative 
purposes. Such space would include multi-use 
common spaces, such as meeting rooms, reception 
areas, or similar spaces to be identified. The 
proposed ordinance states: "It is intended that the 
Director of Property take an extremely broad view 
of the types of spaces that may be made valuable 
for a wide array of artistic and cultural disciplines, 
including but not limited to: visual arts, dance, 
theater, music, literary arts, or new 
genre/multimedia." In addition, the ordinance 
makes clear that departments would not be 
expected to allow nonprofit organizations access to 
spaces that contain confidential or sensitive 
material. 



The proposed ordinance would require the director 
of each City department with jurisdiction over 
facilities in the City to assist the Director of 
Property in preparing the inventory of space by 
providing all information requested by the Director 
of Property within 90 days of that request. The 
subject ordinance outlines some of the information 
that would be requested of departments, includes 
information about lighting, audio-visual 
equipment, ceiling height and schedules for when 
space would be available. The inventory would also 
include the department's estimate of the City's 
actual cost of making the space available, including 
security, technical services or janitorial services. 

The Director of Property would be requested to 
provide a copy of the completed inventory to the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

63 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Board of Supervisors as soon as possible after 
collecting relevant information from City 
departments. City departments that have 
jurisdiction over a large number of facilities, such 
as the Port, Recreation and Parks Department, the 
Airport, and the Public Utilities Commission, may 
submit their inventory of space directly to the 
Board of Supervisors, and provide a copy of that 
inventory to the Director of Property. 

The Budget Analyst notes that the subject 
ordinance only requires the Director of Property to 
create an inventory of property. The sponsor of the 
subject ordinance plans to introduce subsequent 
legislation to establish a program that would 
actually make the space outlined in the inventory 
available to arts organizations. 

The proposed ordinance also urges the San 
Francisco Unified School District and the 
Community College Board to participate in this 
inventory process by providing relevant 
information regarding their facilities to the 
Director of Property. 

Estimated Costs: The Attachment to this report, provided by Mr. 

Anthony DeLucchi, the Director of Property, 
outlines the steps the Real Estate Division would 
need to take in order to provide the Board of 
Supervisors with the inventory of property required 
under the subject ordinance. As stated in the 
Attachment, Mr. DeLucchi estimates that 
researching and compiling the inventory would cost 
the Real Estate Division approximately $8,000 to 
$16,000 in staff time and materials, including 
$5,000 to $10,000 to design a survey to send to City 
departments and collect resulting data and $3,000 
to $6,000 to compile the date into a final inventory 
report. Mr. DeLucchi advises that the actual time 
and funds required to complete the proposed 
inventory would depend entirely on the number 
and type of responses received from other City 
departments. Mr. Delucchi advises that any 
additional costs resulting from creating the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

64 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



proposed inventory of City property would be 
absorbed in the department's existing budget. 

1. As noted previously, the subject ordinance only 
requires the Director of Property to create an 
inventory of property. Subsequent legislation would 
create the program and outline the logistics of 
actually making the space available to 
organizations. However, the subject ordinance does 
state that, in order to provide financial relief to 
such nonprofit organizations, "the City would make 
such space available at no more than the City's 
actual cost." 



2. The Budget Analyst notes that any program 
designed to provide City space to nonprofit 
organizations would need to take into account a 
variety of issues, including possible liability to the 
City and the need to create a permit process that 
would determine how to allocate space to 
organizations interested in using City space, 
whether to require a cleaning/damage deposit from 
organizations and how to calculate the full cost to 
the City of providing such space to ensure that the 
City would be fully reimbursed. Mr. DeLucchi 
estimates that if the Division of Real Estate were 
charged with overseeing such a permit process, 
ongoing costs for the preparation, processing and 
management of permits would be a minimum of 
approximately $10,000 per year in staff time and 
materials, depending upon the number and scope of 
such permits, as stated in the Attachment. Mr. 
Delucchi does not anticipate that the Real Estate 
Division would request additional funds to cover 
such additional costs. However, should the program 
to provide City space to nonprofit organizations be 
larger than previously expected, the Real Estate 
Division would reconsider the need to request 
additional funds, according to Mr. Delucchi. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

65 



2ity and County of San Francisco 




Attachment 
Page" 1 df-2"- 

Real Estate Division 
Administrative Services Department 



February 28, 2001 



Harvey Rose 

Budget Analyst 

1390 Market Street, Room 1025 

San Francisco, CA 94 102 



Re: Proposed Ordinance Requiring the Director of Property to Create an 

Inventory of City Property that may be Appropriate for Temporary and 
Occasional Use by Nonprofit Arts and Cultural Organizations 



Dear Mr. Rose: 

As requested by Ms. Emily Newman of your office, I am providing an estimate of time 
and costs that would be incurred by the Real Estate Division to comply with the intent of 
the subject Ordinance. The following steps would be required to carry out the provisions 
of this Ordinance: 

• Prepare a survey form for completion by City departments relative to the property 
under their jurisdiction. Instructions should have sufficient detail that City 
departments would be able to inventory and separate properties that would be 
available for continuing, periodic use, or occasional use: Preparation of this 
survey form would require approximately 20-40 hours of Real Estate Division 
staff time. 

• Contact City departments with follow-up reminders during the 90-day response 
time. It is estimated each reminder would take approximately 4-8 hours of staff 
time. 

• Report preparation would be entirely dependent upon the number and type of 
responses received from other City departments. The final report could require 
only a few hours; but if a substantial and varied number of responses were 
received, staff time could mushroom into one or more weeks. 

• Assist City departments in compiling their occupancy costs. 

• In consultation with the City Attorney's Office, prepare a Use Permit. 



H:\WP\Ans.doc 
(415) 564-9850 
FAX: (415)552-9218 



Office of the Director of Property 
23 Von New Avenue, Suit* *oo 



66 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 2 



At a minimum, nonprofits should be required to provide proof of insurance, pay a 
deposit and pay their pro-rata occupancy cost. A system would need to be set up 
for collection of fees. Staff time to prepare and process these permits could be as 
short as a few hours to a week+ for complex use of City facilities. 

It is estimated that the cost of the initial start up would be approximately: 

S5,000 to S10,000 (survey & collect data) 
S3.000to S 6.000 (report preparation) 
58,000 to $16,000 

After initial start-up, ongoing costs for preparation, processing, and management 
of the permits would be dependent upon the number and scope of such permits, 
but a minimum would be approximately 510,000 per year. 

Sincerely, 




H:\WP\Arts.doc 



TOTAL P. 03 
67 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Items 8 and 9 - Files 01-0370 and 01-0371 



Department: 



Items: 






Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

New Positions: 



Aging and Adult Services 

File 01-0370 : Supplemental Appropriation in trie amount 
of $2,000,000 for senior program needs ($1,000,000) and 
infrastructure needs ($1,000,000); amending the Annual 
Salary Ordinance to create two new positions. 

File 01-0371 : Ordinance amending the FY 2000-2001 
Annual Salary Ordinance reflecting the creation of two 
new positions in the Aging and Adult Services 
Department. 



$2,000,000 

General Fund Reserve 
Surplus FY 2000-01 Parking Tax 1 
Revenue for Senior Programs 
Total 



$1,439,000 

561.000 
$2,000,000 



The proposed supplemental appropriation and Annual 
Salary Ordinance Amendment would create the following 
new positions: 



No. of 
FTE 
Positions Classification 



Title 



Stepl 

(Biweekly- 

Annual) 



Step 5 

(Biweekly- 

Annual) 



423 ON Estate Investigator 



$1,778 
$46,228 



$2,194 
$57,044 



Description: 



As explained in the attached memorandum from Mr. John 
Clark, Acting Deputy Executive Director for the 
Department of Aging and Adult Services, the proposed 
supplemental appropriation would he a project 
appropriation, and any unexpended funds at the 



1 Under Article 9, Section 615 of the Administrative Code, one third of all Parking Tax collections is 
dedicated to Senior Citizen's Programs. The Controller's Six Month Budget Status Report, issued on 
February 7, 2001 projected increased Parking Tax collections of approximately $1.7 million during 
FY 2000-2001. Therefore, the Controller has certified the availability of $561,000 for Senior Citizen's 
Programs, as shown in the Source of Funds table above. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

68 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



completion of the current, 2000-2001 Fiscal Year, would 
be carried forward for expenditure during FY 2001-2002. 

A total of $1,000,000 would be used to addressed 
identified Senior needs, including the following: 

• Funding non-profit, community based service 
providers based on a Request-for-Proposal (RFP) 
competitive process with special emphasis on joint 
collaborations between agencies, specific performance 
measures, and proposals serving groups with multiple 
needs. Expenditures are expected to total $552,504 for 
this purpose. 

• Funding unmet internal department needs, principally 
additional rent and moving costs related to the 
relocation of all operations to 1650 Mission Street and 
personal computers for Conservatorship Services 
employees in the amount of $300,000. 

• Funding to meet the need for more diversity in 
programs serving San Francisco veterans. The 
remaining funds would pay for two new positions to 
perform additional veteran's counseling services as 
City staff; one position would focus on the needs in the 
Filipino-American Community, and the other position 
would assist the Russian-American Community. 
Expenditures would total approximately $142,496 for 
salaries and fringe benefits for 12 months and $5,000 
for two personal computers and related equipment for 
these two positions. 

In addition to the $1,000,000 for identified Senior Needs 
described above, the proposed supplemental appropriation 
would also provide for the expenditure of $1,000,000 for 
"Infrastructure Needs", defined as "ongoing costs of the 
non-profit contractors who perform these services for the 
City necessary to maintain existing service levels, 
including employee salary increases, increase[s] in rent, 
utilities and insurance, and replacement of worn-out 
equipment and vehicles". 

According to Mr. Clark, all expenditures from the 
$1,000,000 allocation to the infrastructure needs of non- 
profit contractors would be allocated by the Department 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
69 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

of Adult and Aging Services based on an evaluation of 
specific proposals prepared by such non-profit contractors. 
The evaluation criteria that would be employed by the 
Department of Adult and Aging Services of such proposals 
would include the following: 

1. Program expense increases (e.g., gas, supplies, 
printing, raw materials, etc.) 

2. Rent/utility cost increases 

3. Technology replacement/upgrades (e.g., Personal 
Computers) 

4. Capital Expenditures (e.g., building modifications, 
equipment, etc.) 

5. Personnel-related costs: "wage-push" adjustments 
due to the Minimum Compensation Ordinance, 
salary enhancements. 

6. Training Costs for service provider staff. 

Comments: 1. As noted above, the proposed supplemental 

appropriation would be a project appropriation if 
approved, and any unexpended funds at the completion of 
the current, 2000-2001 Fiscal Year, would be carried 
forward for expenditure during FY 2001-2002. After all of 
the requested $2,000,000 is expended, funding for such 
expenditures, including funding for the two new positions, 
would cease unless additional funds are appropriated for 
the same purpose. The proposed two new 4230 Estate 
Investigator positions are designated 'N' for new 
positions. However, because the positions would be 
funded by the project appropriation, the positions should 
be designated 'L' for Limited Duration positions. 
Therefore, the two positions would be terminated once the 
source of project funding is expended unless additional 
funds are appropriated. 

2. The Department of Adult and Aging Services is 
unable to provide full budget details for the $852,504 in 
non-personnel related services for identified Senior needs 
and $1,000,000 for infrastructure needs for non-profit 
contractors as separate RFP processes and competitive 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

70 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



proposals have not been conducted by the Department. If 
the Board of Supervisors wishes to consider the specific 
allocation of such funds to non-profit contractors, such 
funding should be reserved pending completion of the 
RFP and proposal processes and request a release of the 
reserved funds at the time the Department is able to 
provide budget details. 

3. The original FY 2000-2001 Adult and Aging 
Services budget as approved by the Board of Supervisors 
and the Mayor totals approximately $25.6 million. Of that 
amount, approximately $10.3 million is funded from 
Parking Taxes, $5.36 million is from Federal and State 
grants and subventions dedicated to senior programs, 
$2.57 million from departmental revenues and $5.37 
million from General Fund support. As noted above, 
increased Parking Tax collections projected for FY 2000- 
2001 results in an additional $561,000 for Senior 
programs. Also, the Controller, the Mayor and the Budget 
Analyst are currently projecting that FY 2001-2002 
Parking Tax revenue growth would provide increased 
funds for Senior programs in the amount of an additional 
$1,000,000. 

As stated in the attached memorandum, the Board of 
Supervisors could consider an alternative policy decision 
to fund the proposed $2,000,000 in services and 
infrastructure needs from the following sources of funds: 

General Fund Reserve $ 439,000 
Surplus FY 2000-2001 Parking Tax 

Revenue 561,000 
New FY 2001-2002 Parking Tax 

Revenue 1.000.000 

Total $2,000,000 

In order to implement the policy option to fund the 
$2,000,000 in services and infrastructure needs from the 
alternative sources identified above, the Board of 
Supervisors could approve the proposed supplemental 
appropriation to the FY 2000-2001 budget in the reduced 
amount of $1,000,000 ($439,000 from the General Fund 
reserve and $561,000 from Surplus FY 2000-2001 Parking 
Tax Revenue) and adopt a separate resolution urging the 
Department of Adult and Aging Services and the Mayor to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

71 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 7, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Recommendation: 



fund the remaining $1,000,000 in services and 
infrastructure needs from incremental Parking Tax 
revenue in the FY 2001-2002 budget. 

1. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation 
(File 01-0370) and the ordinance amending the Annual 
Salary Ordinance (File 01-0371) to change the designation 
for the two new positions from 'N' for New to 'L' for 
Limited Duration. 



2. The proposed supplemental appropriation and 
ordinance amending the Annual Salary Ordinance are 
policy matters for the Board of Supervisors. 



Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Gonzalez 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Steve Kawa 





Harvey M. Rose 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

72 




Attachment 
Page 1 of 4 
City and County of San Francisco department of aging and adult services 

Mayor Willie L. Brown, Jr. 

^<"c67j*5>. Dr. Sandra Y. Nathan, Executive Director 

\y¥^ *s.o\ 

Commission on the Aging 
Mental Health Conservator 

Public Administrator-Public Guardian 



MEMORANDUM 

TO: KEN BRUCE, Budget Analyst 

FROM: JOHN CLARK, Acting Deputy Executive Director 

DATE: MARCH 1,2001 

RE: SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION REQUEST FOR SENIOR PROGRAMS 

AND RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE (FILE 01-0370) 



As you are aware, the population of San Francisco is aging rapidly. Along with the aging of our 
population comes an increase in the number of San Franciscans who require the assistance of 
various City agencies and non-governmental organizations to meet their daily needs. The 
Department of Aging and Adult Services' Commission on the Aging Division has surveyed 
residents, providers, health care organizations and others to determine the level of unmet needs 
in our community. 

The consensus of this research is that a considerable number of elderly San Franciscans are 
unable to access needed services. To combat this problem, staff, Commissioners and providers 
held a number of meetings to consider alternatives. Out of this process emerged a consensus that 
additional funds were needed for both infrastructure and ongoing unmet needs. 

Ongoing Unmet Needs 

As noted above, research indicates a significant number of San Francisco seniors are unable to 
receive sufficient assistance in a number of functional areas. Three prominent examples are 
housing counseling, to deal with issues such as evictions; expansion of home-delivered meal 
programs; providing enhanced veterans benefit counseling and paratransit services. With the 
exception of an adjustment of direct costs attributable to the Minimum Compensation Ordinance 
(MCO), programs serving the elderly have not received a funding increase in several years, 
despite the growth in the elderly population. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance provides for $1,000,000 in additional 
funding for ongoing unmet service needs. If approved, the Department of Aging and Adult 
Services will allocate approximately 5553,000 of these funds to non-profit, community-based 
service providers based on a Request-For-Proposal method with special emphasis on joint 
collaborations between agencies, specific performance measures, and proposals serving groups 
with multiple needs. 



25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 650, San Francisco, CA 94102 
Principal Number (415) 864-6051 Fax Number (415) 864-3991 

73 



^age I of 4 

We would also use this portion of the supplemental to cover $300,000 of unmet internal 
department needs, principally additional rent and move costs relating to the relocation of 
operations to 1650 Mission Street, and the purchase of computers for the Office of 
Conservatorship Services, which presently has only four computers for 20 professional staff. 

Lastly, to meet the need for more diversity in programs serving San Francisco veterans, the 
remaining "ongoing" funds will pay for two additional veteran's counselors on City staff: one 
focusing on needs in the Filipino-American Community, and the other assisting the Russian- 
American Community. The cost for these two additional counselors, including benefits, is about 
$147,000. The total then for ongoing unmet needs is $553,000+$300,000+$147,000=$l million. 

These funds, if approved, would be available in the" next fiscal year. 
Infrastructure Needs 

Infrastructure needs are defined as "ongoing costs (of the non-profit contractors who perform 
these services for the City) necessary to maintain existing service levels, including employee 
salary increases, increase[s] in rent, utilities and insurance, and replacement of wom-out 
equipment and vehicles." To the extent that infrastructure needs are ignored, community-based 
organizations lose the ability to maintain current service levels. Infrastructure needs are also 
typically the "last in line" for both governmental and charitable funding, as these sources are 
often limited to program operations. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance provides for $1,000,000 in additional 
funding for infrastructure needs. If approved, the Department of Aging and Adult Services will 
allocate all of these funds to existing contractors on a pro-rata basis, upon receipt of an 
acceptable project proposal from each contractor detailing how the funds are to be used, for the 
following purposes only: 

1. Program expense increase (e.g., gas, supplies, printing, raw materials, etc.) 

2. Rent/utility cost increase 

3. Technology replacement/upgrades (e.g., PCs) 

4. Capital Expenditures (e.g., building modifications, equipment, etc.) 

5. Personnel-related costs: "wage-push" adjustments due to the Minimum Compensation 
Ordinance, salary enhancements. 

6. Training Costs for service provider staff. 

In granting these additional funds, the department will assign priority to proposals that fund one- 
time purchases (e.g., technology) as opposed to ongoing expenses (like salary increases). 
Contractors will also be advised that to the extent that they use these infrastructure funds to pay 
for ongoing cost increases (like salaries), they are responsible for funding ongoing incremental 
costs in future years from non-City funding sources. These infrastructure enhancement funds 
will be available, if approved, beginning in the current fiscal year. 

Funding Sources 

To lessen the impact on the General Fund, it would be our recommendation to pay for these 
increases primarily through growth in the Off-Street Parking Tax Fund. The Controller estimates 
that there will be about $561,000 in excess parking tax funds in the current fiscal year, and about 
$1,000,000 additional next year. Meeting Supervisor Daly's $2,000,000 target would then 
require only $439,000 in General Fund reserve. 

74 



Fage 3 of 4 
I also note that this supplemental appropriation ordinance is structured as a continuing project, so 
that any unspent funds at the end of this fiscal year can be carried over into next year. This is 
necessary to allow for the carryover of unspent funds into FY 01-02 - we do not think it is 
possible to process all infrastructure requests and conclude the ongoing need RFP process before 
the end of this fiscal year. It would be our suggestion that the $1,000,000 in infrastructure funds 
be paid for through excess parking tax funds in this fiscal year, and General Fund reserve; while 
the $1,000,000 in ongoing unmet needs be funded through the anticipated increase in available 
parking tax funds next fiscal year. 

Conclusion 

The need for funding increases for programs serving the elderly and disabled adults is well 
documented. The Commission on the Aging and I believe that the attached proposed 
supplemental appropriation ordinance is a responsible approach that will address some of these 
unmet needs. 



75 



City and County of San Francisco 



Attacnment 
Page 4 



"oF"4 




DEPARTMENT OF AGING AND ADULT SERVICES 

Mayor Willie L Brown, Jr. 
Dr. Sandra Y. Nathan, Executive Director 



Commission on the Aging 
Mental Health Conservator 

Public Administrator-Public Guardian 



Supplemental Appropriations Ordinance 

Position Detail 

FY 01-02 



(2) Classification 4230 Estate Investigator (Veteran's Counselor) @ $57,044 $1 14,088 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits @ 24.9% $ 28,408 

Equipment (two Personal Computers) (one-time only) $ 5.000 

TOTAL $ 147,496 



25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 650, San Francisco, CA 94102 
Principal Number (41 5) 864-6051 Rax Number (41 5) 864-3991 

76 




City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance Committee 

Members: Supervisors Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin and Matt Gonzalez 



Clerk: Gail Johnson 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102^689 



Wednesday, March 14, 2001 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin, Matt Gonzalez. 



MEETING CONVENED 



The meeting convened at 10:08 a.m. 






002104 [Inventory' of City property] 
Supervisors Ammiano, Hall 

Ordinance directing the Director of Property to create an inventory of City property that may be appropriate for 

temporary and occasional use by nonprofit arts and cultural organizations. 

12/4/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

2/1/01, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. New committee structure. 

3/7/01, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: None. 

Continued to 3/14/01. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Anthony Delucchi. Director of Property. Real 
Estate Division, Administrative Services Department; Supervisor Ammiano. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



010145 [Sublease of Treasure Island Brig Facility for Sheriffs Department] 

Resolution approving a sublease, retroactive to July 1, 2000, between the City and County of San Francisco 
(The "City") and the Treasure Island Development Authority (The "Authority") for certain property on 
Treasure Island commonly known as the Brig (Buildings 670 and 671) located at the comer of 13th and M 
Streets on Treasure Island, for an annual rent not to exceed 5250,000 per year. (Real Estate Department) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

(Supervisor Gonzalez dissenting in Committee.) 
1/24/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

2/28/01 , CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Michael Hennessey. Sheriff; Jean Manani. Chief 
Financial Officer, Sheriffs Department; Annemarie Conroy, Executive Director, Treasure Island Development Authority; Anthony 
Delucchi, Director of Property, Real Estate Division, Administrative Services Department. 
Continued to 3/14/01. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Michael Hennessey. Sheriff; Annemarie 
Conroy, Executive Director, Treasure Island Development Authority: Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney 
Continued to 3/21/01. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at .1:39 I'M on ; > iu 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



March 14, 2001 



010219 |Reserved Funds, Police Department) 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Police Department (fiscal year 1999-2000 budget), in the 
amount of $180,000.00 to fund the Department's Crisis Intervention Program. (Police Department) 
2/2/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Helynna Brooke, Executive Director, Mental 
Health Board; Sergeant Michael Sullivan, Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator, Police Department, 
Carolyn Kaufman, Program Director, Mobile Crisis Treatment Team, Community Mental Health Services, 
Department of Public Health. 

Release of reserved funds in the amount of $180,000 approved. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



010355 |Lease Amendment, 1650 Mission Street] 

Resolution authorizing an amendment to lease real property at 1650 Mission Street for the Department of 
Aging and Adult Services. (Real Estate Department) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

2/21/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee 
Speakers: None. Continued to 3/21/01. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



010203 [Contracting out Facility Security Services) 

Resolution concurring with the Controller's certification that facility security services for the Municipal 
Transportation Agency can be practically performed by a private contractor at a lower cost than by City and 
County employees. (Public Transportation Commission) 
2/14/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst. Gigi Harrington. Deputy General Manager, 
Finance and Administration, Municipal Railway 
RECOMMENDED., by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



010351 [Grant to acquire compressed natural gas (CNG) light duty, high mileage vehicles for permitted airport 
operators] 
Supervisors Newsom. Leno 

Resolution authorizing the Airport Commission to accept and expend a grant in the amount of SI 00.000 from 
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) for acquisition of compressed natural gas (CNG) 
vans by Airport permittees. (Airport Commission) 
2/21/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Cathy Widener. Government Affairs 
Administrator, Airport; Theodore Lakey. Deputy City Attorney. 
RECOMMENDED., by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed ai 3:40 P\1 on i S M 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



March 14, 2001 



010352 [Grant to acquire compressed natural gas (CNG) light duty vehicles for permitted airport operators] 
Supervisors Newsom, Leno 

Resolution authorizing the Airport Commission to accept and expend a grant in the amount of S99,000 from 
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) for acquisition of compressed natural gas (CNG) 
autos and vans by Airport permittees. (Airport Commission) 
2/21/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Cathy Widener, Government Affairs 
Administrator, Airport; Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney. 
RECOMMENDED., by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



010249 [Government Funding, Department of Elections] 

Ordinance appropriating S2, 538, 692 from the General Fund Reserve to fund salaries, fringe benefits, other 
current expenses, materials and supplies, and equipment for the Department of Elections for fiscal year 2000- 
2001. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

2/7/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Dr. Phillip Paris, Acting Director of Elections, Christiane 
Hayashi, Department of Elections; Edward Harrington, Controller; Bill Lee, City Administrator; Shelley 
Bradford-Bell; Chris Bowman, Citizens Advisory Committee on Elections; Gloria Lawrence, APRI. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed al .1:40 P\l on ] J 04 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes March 14,2001 



SPECIAL ORDER -11:00 AM 



010277 |Solar Energy Bondl 

Supervisors Leno, Maxwell, McGoldrick, Peskin, Gonzalez, Newsom. Sandoval, Ammiano, Hall 

Resolution urging the Controller, Mayor's Office of Public Finance, Department of the Environment, Public 

Utilities Commission and other applicable departments to assist in crafting a solar energy bond for 

consideration on the November 2001 ballot to provide funding for solar power technology to be used on San 

Francisco public buildings and land. 

2/12/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Public Health and Environment Committee Sponsor requests that this item be scheduled for 

the March 14, 2001, meeting. 

3/5/01, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Francesco Vietor, Director, Department of the Environment; Supervisor 
Ammiano; Laurie Park, Acting General Manager, Hetch Hctchy Water and Power; Deirdre Appel, Project 
Engineer, Hetch Hetchy Water and Power; David Hochschild, Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services; 
Lucien Canton, Director, Mayor's Office of Emergency Services; Greg Rosen, Powerlight Corporation. Kan 
Smith, Manager of Regulator}' Affairs, Powerlight Corporation; Mark Lloyd, Bill Smith, General United 
Energy; Allison Brooks, Neighborhood Parks Council; Tim Colen; Adam Browning; Chris Gwvinozzo, 
International Council for Local Environmental Initiative, Rafael Sperry; Adam Hochschild; Rosie Jencks. 
SPUR; Kark Knapp; Matt Goldberg; Donna Bero, Executive Director, Friends of Recreation and Parks; 
Kenneth Folan; Dan Berman; Milton Noguerra, Northern California Solar Energy Association. Aroza 
Simpson. Gray Panthers; Medea Benjamin. Green Party; Thomas Willeeke; Joel Kohn. Watty McQuat, 
President, HMH Resources. 
Supen-isor Ammiano added as co-sponsor. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at 2:34 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 4 Printed al 3:40 PM on ?> 0t 



[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 

CITY AND COUNTY |^^^l}| OF SAN FRANCISCO 



4/0l 




MAR I 3 2001 
JBOARD OF SUPERVISORS SAN FRANC|SCO 

BUDGET ANALYST PUBLIC LIBRARY 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 

March 8, 2001 

TO: ^Finance Committee 

FROM: ,Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 1 - File 00-2104 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
March 7, 2001. 

Item: Ordinance directing the Director of Property to 

create an inventory of City property that may be 
appropriate for temporary and occasional use by 
nonprofit arts and cultural organizations. 

Description: The proposed ordinance would direct the Director of 

Property to create an inventory of spaces within 
City and City-controlled (leased) facilities that may 
be appropriate for nonprofit arts and cultural 
organizations to use for rehearsals, performances, 
exhibitions or short-term ancillary administrative 
purposes. Such space would include multi-use 
common spaces, such as meeting rooms, reception 
areas, or similar spaces to be identified. The 
proposed ordinance states: "It is intended that the 
Director of Property take an extremely broad view 
of the types of spaces that may be made valuable 
for a wide array of artistic and cultural disciplines, 
including but not limited to: visual arts, dance, 
theater, music, literary arts, or new 
genre/multimedia." In addition, the ordinance 
makes clear that departments would not be 
expected to allow nonprofit organizations access to 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

spaces that contain confidential or sensitive 
material. 

The proposed ordinance would require the director 
of each City department with jurisdiction over 
facilities in the City to assist the Director of 
Property in preparing the inventory of space by 
providing all information requested by the Director 
of Property within 90 days of that request. The 
subject ordinance outlines some of the information 
that would be requested of departments, includes 
information about fighting, audio-visual 
equipment, ceiling height and schedules for when 
space would be available. The inventory would also 
include the department's estimate of the City's 
actual cost of making the space available, including 
security, technical services or janitorial services. 

The Director of Property would be requested to 
provide a copy of the completed inventory to the 
Board of Supervisors as soon as possible after 
collecting relevant information from City 
departments. City departments that have 
jurisdiction over a large number of facilities, such 
as the Port, Recreation and Parks Department, the 
Airport, and the Public Utilities Commission, may 
submit their inventory of space directly to the 
Board of Supervisors, and provide a copy of that 
inventory to the Director of Property. 

The Budget Analyst notes that the subject 
ordinance only requires the Director of Property to 
create an inventory of property. The sponsor of the 
subject ordinance plans to introduce subsequent 
legislation to establish a program that would 
actually make the space outlined in the inventory 
available to arts organizations. 

The proposed ordinance also urges the San 
Francisco Unified School District and the 
Community College Board to participate in this 
inventory process by providing relevant 
information regarding their facilities to the 
Director of Property. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Estimated Costs: 



Comments: 



The Attachment to this report, provided by Mr. 
Anthony DeLucchi, the Director of Property, 
outlines the steps the Real Estate Division would 
need to take in order to provide the Board of 
Supervisors with the inventory of property required 
under the subject ordinance. As stated in the 
Attachment, Mr. DeLucchi estimates that 
researching and compiling the inventory would cost 
the Real Estate Division approximately $8,000 to 
$16,000 in staff time and materials, including 
$5,000 to $10,000 to design a survey to send to City 
departments and collect resulting data and $3,000 
to $6,000 to compile the data into a final inventory 
report. Mr. DeLucchi advises that the actual time 
and funds required to complete the proposed 
inventory would depend entirely on the number 
and type of responses received from other City 
departments. Mr. Delucchi advises that any 
additional costs resulting from creating the 
proposed inventory of City property would be 
absorbed in the department's existing budget. 

1. As noted previously, the subject ordinance only 
requires the Director of Property to create an 
inventory of property. Subsequent legislation would 
create the program and outline the logistics of 
actually making the space available to 
organizations. However, the subject ordinance does 
state that, in order to provide financial relief to 
such nonprofit organizations, "the City would make 
such space available at no more than the City's 
actual cost." 



2. The Budget Analyst notes that any program 
designed to provide City space to nonprofit 
organizations would need to take into account a 
variety of issues, including possible liability to the 
City and the need to create a permit process that 
would determine how to allocate space to 
organizations interested in using City space, 
whether to require a cleaning/damage deposit from 
organizations and how to calculate the full cost to 
the City of providing such space to ensure that the 
City would be fully reimbursed. Mr. DeLucchi 
estimates that if the Division of Real Estate were 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



charged with overseeing such a use permit process, 
ongoing costs for the preparation, processing and 
management of permits would be a m inim um of 
approximately $10,000 per year in staff time and 
materials, depending upon the number and scope of 
such permits, as stated in the Attachment. Mr. 
Delucchi does not anticipate that the Real Estate 
Division would request additional funds to cover 
such additional costs. However, should the program 
to provide City space to nonprofit organizations be 
larger than previously expected, the Real Estate 
Division would reconsider the need to request 
additional funds, according to Mr. Delucchi. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



rrty and County of San Francisco 




Attachment 
Page 1 df-2~ 

Real Estate Division 
Administrative Services Department 



February 28,2001 



Harvey Rose 

Budget Analyst 

1390 Market Street, Room 1025 

San Francisco, CA 94 102 



Re: Proposed Ordinance Requiring the Director of Property to Create an 

Inventory of City Property that may be Appropriate for Temporary and 
Occasional Use by Nonprofit Arts and Cultural Organizations 



Dear Mr. Rose: 

As requested by Ms. Emily Newman of your office, I am providing an estimate of time 
and costs that would be incurred by the Real Estate Division to comply with the intent of 
the subject Ordinance. The following steps would be required to carry out the provisions 
of this Ordinance: 

• Prepare a survey form for completion by City departments relative to the property 
under their jurisdiction. Instructions should have sufficient detail that City 
departments would be able to inventory and separate properties that would be 
available for continuing, periodic use, or occasional use: Preparation of this 
survey form would require approximately 20-40 hours of Real Estate Division 
staff time. 

• Contact City departments with follow-up reminders during the 90-day response 
time. It is estimated each reminder would take approximately 4-8 hours of staff 
time. 

• Report preparation would be entirely dependent upon the number and type of 
responses received from other City departments. The final report could require 
only a few hours; but if a substantial and varied number of responses were 
received, staff time could mushroom into one or more weeks. 

• Assist City departments in compiling their occupancy costs. 

• In consultation with the City Attorney's Office, prepare a Use Permit. 



H:\WFArcs.doc 
£1 5)554-9330 
PAX: (415)552-3216 



Offica of the Director of Property 
23 Van N«aa Avenue, Oult« 4<X3 



iimo, Ml oa 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 2 



At a minimum, nonprafit3 should be required to provide proof of insurance, pay a 
deposit and pay their pro-rata occupancy cost A system would need to be set up 
for collection of fees. Staff time to prepare and process these permits could be as 
short as a few hours to a week+ for complex use of City facilities. 

It is estimated that the cost of the initial start up would be approximately: 

S5,000 to 510,000 (survey & collect data) 
S3.00Q to S 6.000 (report preparation) 
58,000 to 516,000 

After initial start-up, ongoing costs for preparation, processing, and management 
of the permits would be dependent upon the number and scope of such permits, 
but a minimum would be approximately S10.000 per year. 

Sincerely, 




Anthon^rjpeliubchi 
Director of*Prs^eny 




H:\WP\Ara.doc 



TOTCL P. 33 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 2 -File 01-0145 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
February 28, 2001. 



Department: 
Item: 






Location: 

Purpose of Sublease: 

Lessor: 

Lessee: 

Sublessee: 

Term of Sublease: 



Sheriffs Department 

Treasure Island Development Authority 

Resolution approving a sublease, retroactive to July 1, 
2000, between the City and the Treasure Island 
Development Authority for property on Treasure Island 
commonly known as the Treasure Island Naval Brig, or 
jail, (Buildings 670 & 671), located at the Corner of 13 th 
and M Streets on Treasure Island, for an annual rent not 
to exceed $250,000 per year. 

Treasure Island Brig facility (Buildings 670 & 671), 
located at the Corner of 13 th and M Streets 

Under the proposed sublease, the Sheriffs Department 
would use the Treasure Island Naval Brig for training 
and, in the case of an emergency, overflow jail facilities. 

U.S. Navy (Master Lease) 

Treasure Island Development Authority 

Sheriffs Department 

Commencing retroactively to July 1, 2000 and 
terminating on May 15, 2005, for a sublease term of four 
years and eleven months (See Comment No. 1). Under the 
proposed sublease, the Sheriffs Department would have 
three options for using the Naval Brig ("the Brig") facility: 

1) The Sheriffs Department would be authorized to use 
the Brig facility for a total of 90 days per fiscal year for 
Deputy Sheriff training purposes; 

2) Additionally, upon written notice of an emergency to 
the Treasure Island Development Authority, the 
Sheriffs Department would be able to use the Brig 
facility during an emergency to house approximately 
100 nonviolent prisoners during the duration of the 
emergency. 1 Under the proposed sublease, the Sheriffs 



1 The proposed lease defines "emergency" as "...any situation or condition in the City and 
County of San Francisco which creates a widespread threat to life, property, or the welfare of 
the City and County of San Francisco or its citizens as determined by the Mayor." 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Right of Renewal: 

Number of 
Square Feet: 



Department would not be charged additional rent by 
the Treasure Island Development Authority for such 
emergency use of the Brig facility; 

3) The Sheriffs Department may request permission 
from the Treasure Island Development Authority to 
use the Brig facility during non-emergencies to: (a) 
temporarily house approximately 100 nonviolent 
prisoners, or (b) use the facility for any use, such as 
longer-term housing of inmates, approved in writing 
by the Executive Director of the Treasure Island 
Development Authority. The Sheriffs Department 
would be required to make such requests at least 30 
days prior to the date the Sheriffs Department would 
like to begin using the facility. According to Mr. 
Stephen Proud of the Treasure Island Development 
Authority, before granting permission for such non- 
emergency use of the Brig facility, the Treasure Island 
Development Authority would have the option to 
negotiate an amended lease including an increased 
rent with the Sheriffs Department if the Sheriffs 
Department proposed using the facility for an 
extended period of time. Such a lease amendment and 
any related additional funds would be subject to 
approval by the Board of Supervisors. The subject 
sublease states that the Treasure Island Development 
Authority "...shall not unreasonably withhold 
permission to use the Premises during such non- 
emergency and/or non-Permitted Use Period." 

None 



Approximately 2.25 acres (98,010 square feet), including 
approximately 28,163 square feet for the Brig building. 
The balance of 69,847 square feet (98,010 less 28,163) 
would be used by the Sheriffs Department for secured 
prisoner outdoor recreation and parking. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

8 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Rent and Other Costs 

Payable to the Treasure 

Island Authority by the 

Sheriffs Department: $250,000 per year, paid annually in advance of July 1 st for 

each fiscal year during the four-year and eleven-month 
term of the lease. In addition to the $250,000 annual rent, 
the City will be required to pay to Treasure Island 
Development Authority additional fees of $19,620 per 
year, including: 

(1) The City will pay for the Common Area Maintenance 
Charge (Navy CAM Charge) fee charged by the Navy 
to the Treasure Island Development Authority under 
the Master Lease. Under the proposed sublease, the 
Sheriffs Department would be required to pay $900 
per month, or $10,800 annually, to the Treasure 
Island Development Authority for the CAM Charge. 2 

(2) The City will pay to the Treasure Island Development 
Authority a monthly Landscaping Charge of $735, for 
a total annual charge of $8,820. 

Therefore, the total annual charges to be paid by the 
Sheriffs Department to the Treasure Island Development 
Authority will be $269,620 ($250,000 in rent plus $19,620 
in additional fees). 

Ms. Jean Mariani of the Sheriffs Department advises 
that the Sheriffs Department will make Navy CAM and 
Landscaping payments monthly to the Treasure Island 
Development Authority, for the entire term of the 
sublease, whether the Sheriffs Department is using the 
facility or not. The proposed sublease contains no 
provisions for annual adjustments for the rent, the CAM 
or the Landscaping Charge. 



2 According to Mr. Stephen Proud of the Treasure Island Development Authority, the CAM is based 
on $0,025 per square foot per month for the 28,163 interior space of the Brig building and $0,003 per 
square foot per month for the 69,847 exterior space, totaling $913.62 per month. However, the 
proposed sublease states that the Navy CAM charge is not to exceed $900 per month. Therefore the 
Sheriffs Department would be required to pay to the Treasure Island Development Authority $900 
per month, or $10,800 annually. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

9 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Source of Funds: 



Ms. Mariani advises that the Sheriffs Department's 
Fiscal Year 2000-2001 General Fund budget includes 
$269,620 to fund the $250,000 in rent and $19,620 in 
additional fees discussed above, which the Sheriffs 
Department must pay to the Treasure Island 
Development Authority for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 (See 
Comment No. 4). 



Utilities and 
Maintenance: 



Description: 



Under the proposed sublease, the City would pay for all 
maintenance and utility costs at the Brig facility. Mr. 
Stephen Proud of the Treasure Island Development 
Authority advises that the City would be required to pay 
these costs, estimated at $92,000 annually, year round for 
the entire four years and eleven months of the sublease 
term. (See Comment No. 4 for all estimated costs.) 

On May 2, 1997, the Board of Supervisors authorized the 
creation of the Treasure Island Development Authority as 
a nonprofit public benefit corporation to act as a single 
entity focused on the planning, redevelopment, 
reconstruction, rehabihtation, reuse and conversion of 
former United States Naval Station Treasure Island 
(Resolution No. 244-97-3). On October 12, 1997, the 
California Legislature approved the Treasure Island 
Conversion Act of 1997, which designated the Authority 
as a trustee of the State Tidelands Trust and as a 
redevelopment agency with jurisdiction over Treasure 
Island and Yerba Buena Island. The Treasure Island 
Development Authority currently leases from the Navy 
the Treasure Island Brig facility, discussed below, under a 
five-year Master Lease, which began on April 5, 1999 and 
will terminate on April 4, 2004. (See Comment No. 2 
below). 

The proposed resolution would authorize a sublease 
between the City and the Treasure Island Development 
Authority for the Sheriffs Department to use the Brig on 
Treasure Island. The Brig is a two-story, 28,163 square 
foot jail facility built by the Federal government in 1992. 
As described above, under the proposed sublease the 
Sheriffs Department would have authority to use the 
Brig facility, for: (1) 90 days of officer training; (2) to 
temporarily house prisoners during an emergency; and (3) 
to temporarily house prisoners during non-emergency 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

periods, or for any other use, as approved by the 
Executive Director of the Treasure Island Development 
Authority. According to Mr. Proud, before granting 
permission for such non-emergency use of the Brig 
facility, the Treasure Island Development Authority 
would have the option to negotiate an amended lease and 
increased rent with the Sheriffs Department if the 
Sheriffs Department proposed using the facility for an 
extended period of time, which would be subject to 
approval by the Board of Supervisors. 

According to Ms. Mariani, the Sheriffs Department 
currently plans to use the Brig facility as a training 
facility and as a temporary emergency overflow jail. Ms. 
Mariani reports that the training to take place at the Brig 
would consist of an annual Advanced Officer course for all 
sworn employees working in City and County jails and a 
four- to seven-week introductory course for newly-hired 
officers. According to Ms. Mariani, the Sheriffs 
Department would use the Brig facility as a temporary 
overflow jail for emergencies such as large protests that 
result in mass arrests. Furthermore, Ms. Mariani advises 
that the Sheriffs Department does not have alternative 
vacant space for overflow housing of prisoners. In the 
past, when the Sheriffs Department has faced jail 
overcrowding, the Sheriffs Department has rented jail 
space from other jurisdictions, and when such space is not 
available, the Sheriffs Department has been forced to 
release prisoners from custody early, according to Ms. 
Mariani and as stated in Attachment I, provided by the 
Sheriffs Department. 

Tenant 

Improvements: The Fiscal Year 1997-98 budget, as finally approved by 

the Board of Supervisors, included a $2,100,000 General 
Fund reserve for the Treasure Island Brig project. The 
Sheriffs Department planned a project that would convert 
the Treasure Island Brig facility to a permanent jail 
facility that would house 140 prisoners in order to relieve 
jail overcrowding at County Jail No. 3 in San Bruno. Ms. 
Mariani advises that the Sheriffs Department was never 
able to operate the Treasure Island Brig as a full-time jail 
due to insufficient staffing (discussed further in Comment 
No. 6 below). Ms. Mariani advises that since 1997, the 
Sheriffs Department has expended a total of $1,099,409 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

in capital improvements, listed as construction costs in 
Attachment II, provided by the Sheriffs Department. In 
addition, Attachment III provided by the Sheriffs 
Department contains an explanation of these projects and 
the amount originally budgeted for these projects, totaling 
$1,380,000 or $280,591 less than the actual expenditures 
of $1,099,409 due to savings realized during construction, 
according to Ms. Mariani. 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Mariani, the proposed sublease will 

commence retroactively because the Sheriffs Department 
has been using the Brig since July 1, 2000 for training 
purposes. Ms. Mariani advises that the Sheriffs 
Department did not first obtain Board of Supervisors 
approval before using the Treasure Island Brig facility 
because the Sheriffs Department and the Treasure Island 
Development Authority were negotiating to finalize the 
sublease documents. 

2. As noted previously, the Treasure Island Development 
Authority currently leases from the Navy the Treasure 
Island Brig facility under a five-year Master Lease, which 
began on April 5, 1999 and will terminate on April 4, 
2004. The Budget Analyst notes that the term for the 
proposed sublease between the Sheriffs Department and 
the Treasure Island Development Authority would expire 
on May 15, 2005, more than one year past the expiration 
of the Master Lease with the Navy. Mr. Proud advises 
that the Treasure Island Development Authority expects 
to complete the transfer of ownership of the Naval Station 
on Treasure Island from the Navy to the Treasure Island 
Development Authority before the Master Lease the 
Treasure Island Development Authority holds with the 
Navy expires. According to Mr. Proud, in the event that 
such a transfer does not take place before the Master 
Lease expires, the Treasure Island Development 
Authority would seek an extension of the Master Lease 
with the Navy. 

3. Ms. Mariani reports that, since 1997, the Sheriffs 
Department has expended a total of $2,335,311 at the 
Treasure Island Brig, including a total of $1,099,409 in 
construction costs and $1,235,902 in operational costs, as 
outlined in Attachment II, provided by the Sheriffs 
Department. Ms. Mariani advises that the total 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



$1,235,902 in operating costs, including the limited 
staffing, utilities and supplies required to support the 
construction improvements taking place. The total 
expenditure of $2,335,311 also includes $44,248 in 
operating costs since July 1, 2000 for Fiscal Year 2000- 
2001. According to Ms. Mariani, upon approval of the 
proposed sublease, the Sheriffs Department would also 
pay to the Treasure Island Development Authority the 
entire $250,000 in rent for FY 2000-2001, plus the $900 
monthly Navy CAM fees and the $735 monthly 
Landscaping fees, discussed above, retroactive to July 1, 
2000, for a approximate total one-time payment of 
$263,080 ($250,000 rent plus $7,200 for eight months of 
Navy CAM fees and $5,880 for eight months of 
Landscaping fees, for July of 2000 through February of 
2001). Ms. Mariani advises that the Sheriffs Department 
has a total of $269,620 in the department's Fiscal Year 
2000-2001 budget to cover this one-time payment of 
$263,080, as well as the $3,600 in Navy CAM fees and 
$2,940 for the remaining four months of Fiscal year 2000- 
2001 (March through June of 2001). 

4. As shown in Attachment II, provided by the Sheriffs 
Department, annual cost to the Sheriffs Department for 
the proposed lease and operation of the Treasure Island 
Brig would be an estimated $373,620 per year. This 
annual budget of $373,620 includes: (a) $269,620 in rent 
and additional fees to be paid to the Treasure Island 
Development. Authority ($250,000 for rent plus $10,800 
for the Navy CAM Charge plus $8,820 in Landscaping 
fees), (b) $80,000 for utilities, (c) $12,000 for maintenance, 
(d) $10,000 for contractual services, including pest control 
and the purchase of bottled water, and (e) $2,000 for 
materials and supplies. Ms. Mariani advises that the 
Sheriffs Department would use existing staff and salaries 
to provide staffing at the Brig during training periods. 
According to Ms. Mariani, if the Sheriffs Department 
were to house prisoners temporarily at the Brig during an 
emergency, the Sheriffs Department would most likely 
staff the facility using overtime funds. Depending on the 
scale of the emergency, the Sheriffs Department would 
either fund the additional costs of operating an emergency 
overflow jail at the Brig from existing budgeted funds or 
be required to request a supplemental appropriation for 
such unexpected costs, according to Ms. Mariani. Ms. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Mariani advises that the Sheriffs Department is unable 
to provide an estimate for how much additional funding 
would be needed, since such an estimate would depend 
entirely on the magnitude of emergency. 

5. Under the proposed sublease, the Sheriffs Department 
would not have exclusive rights to the Treasure Island 
Brig. The sublease states that the Treasure Island 
Development Authority "...shall have the right to enter 
and use the Premises at any time during the Term of this 
Agreement which does not conflict with any Permitted 
Use Period." Mr. Proud advises that such provision was 
included to allow the Treasure Island Development 
Authority access to the Treasure Island Brig, when the 
Sheriffs Department was not using the facility, for 
purposes such as renting the facility to film studios or 
other short-term purposes. 

6. In 1997 the Sheriffs Department began plans to 
renovate the Treasure Island Brig facility in order to use 
the Treasure Island Brig as a full-time County Jail. 
Initially, the Sheriffs Department proposed housing an 
average of 130 to 140 prisoners who would otherwise be 
housed at Jail No. 3 in San Bruno, as part of an effort to 
relocate as many inmates as possible from Jail No. 3 in 
anticipation of the United States District Court 
stipulating that the Sheriffs Department must reduce the 
inmate population at San Bruno Jail No. 3. However, Ms. 
Mariani advises that ultimately, the Sheriffs Department 
was able to fulfill required improvements at the San 
Bruno Jail No. 3, outlined by the United States District 
Court, without relocating prisoners to the Treasure Island 
Brig. As described in further detail below, the Sheriffs 
Department completed capital improvements at the 
Treasure Island Brig during Fiscal Years 1997-1998 and 
1998-1999. However, in Fiscal Year 1999-2000, the 
Sheriffs Department was unable to house inmates at the 
Treasure Island Brig due to insufficient staffing. 

Ms. Mariani advises that after the Sheriffs Department 
completed its capital improvements to the Treasure 
Island Brig, in Fiscal Year 1999-2000 the department 
began using the Treasure Island Brig for training 
purposes. Mr. Proud advises that the Sheriffs 
Department did not pay any rent to the Treasure Island 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

14 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Development Authority during completion of the capital 
improvements at the Treasure Island Brig or during the 
subsequent period of training during Fiscal Year 1999- 
2000. 

Fiscal Year 1997-1998 

In November of 1997 the Board of Supervisors approved a 
supplemental appropriation of $1,699,955 (File 101-97-20) 
to fund capital improvements and operating costs at the 
Treasure Island Brig, as well as to fund 24 new positions 
(22 Deputy Sheriffs and two engineers), which the Board 
of Supervisors also approved in 1997 to staff the Treasure 
Island Brig. 3 However, Ms. Mariani advises that Sheriffs 
Department did not house inmates at the jail in Fiscal 
Year 1997-1998 because the capital improvements 
required more time than was originally expected and 
were not completed until the end of Fiscal Year 1998- 
1999. As a result, the Sheriffs Department expended a 
total of $932,289 on the Treasure Island Brig in Fiscal 
Year 1997-1998, as shown in Attachment II. The total 
expended amount of $932,289 included $573,560 in 
capital costs and $358,729 in operating costs for the 
limited staffing, utilities and supplies required to support 
the construction improvements taking place, according to 
Ms. Mariani. Ms. Mariani advises that the Sheriffs 
Department did not fill the 24 new positions approved the 
previous fiscal year and instead used the resulting salary 
savings to fund deficits in other accounts in the 
department's budget. 

Fiscal Year 1998-1999 

According to Ms. Mariani, in Fiscal Year 1998-1999, the 
Sheriffs Department was appropriated $5,989,987 in its 
original budget, for operating costs ($5,173,526) and 
additional capital improvements ($816,461) to run a full- 
time jail at the Treasure Island Brig. Ms. Mariani advises 
that the budgeted amount for operating costs included 
approximately $2.3 million for the salaries, benefits and 
related costs of approximately 42 existing positions to be 
transferred from the San Bruno Jail No. 3 to the Treasure 
Island Brig. However, the Sheriffs Department again 
postponed operating the Brig as a full-time jail in order to 



3 The $1,699,955 appropriation was made from a $2,100,000 General Fund Reserve that was 
established by the Board of Supervisors in the Fiscal Year 1997-98 budget for the Naval Brig 
on Treasure Island. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
15 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



complete additional improvements necessary for housing 
inmates, according to Ms. Mariani. Ms. Mariani advises 
that in Fiscal Year 1998-1999, the Sheriffs Department 
expended $1,135,018 at the Treasure Island Brig, as 
outlined in Attachment II, leaving a balance of $4,854,969 
(original budget of $5,989,987 less expenditures of 
$1,135,018). Of this balance of $4,854,969, Ms. Mariani 
advises that approximately $2.3 million funded the 
existing 42 employees discussed above, which remained at 
the San Bruno Jail No. 3 and were never transferred to 
the Treasure Island Brig as previously planned. Ms. 
Mariani advises that in Fiscal Year 1998-1999, the 
Sheriffs Department again postponed filling the 24 new 
positions approved in Fiscal Year 1997-1998, and the 
department used the resulting salary savings of 
approximately $2,554,969 to fund deficits in other 
accounts in the department's budget. 

Fiscal Year 1999-2000 

Ms. Mariani advises that for Fiscal Year 1999-2000, the 
Sheriffs Department was appropriated $5,195,625 in its 
original budget for expenditures at the Treasure Island 
brig. However, in Fiscal Year 1999-2000, the Sheriffs 
Department was unable to house inmates at the Treasure 
Island Brig due to insufficient staffing, according to Ms. 
Mariani. Ms. Mariani advises that a growing inmate 
population in the County required the Sheriffs 
Department to operate San Bruno Jail No. 3 at full 
capacity, thus preventing the Sheriffs Department from 
transferring the existing 42 San Bruno positions to the 
Treasure Island Brig and leaving the Treasure Island 
Brig with insufficient staff to operate as a jail. Ms. 
Mariani states in Attachment I that the Sheriffs 
Department has never received full funding to operate the 
Treasure Island Brig and all other jails in the system at 
full capacity at the same time. Ms. Mariani further 
advises that the Treasure Island Brig is a very labor- 
intensive jail and that operating San Bruno Jail No. 3 at 
full capacity is more cost effective than transferring 
inmates to the Treasure Island Brig. As stated previously, 
the Sheriffs Department had originally made plans to 
operate a full-time jail at the Treasure Island Brig in 
anticipation of the United States District Court requiring 
a reduction in the number of inmates at San Bruno Jail 
No. 3, which ultimately was not necessary. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



However, in order to meet staffing requirements outlined 
by the United States District Court's ruling against the 
Sheriffs Department, the Sheriffs Department 
reassigned to the San Bruno Jail No. 3 the 24 new 
positions originally approved in Fiscal Year 1997-1998 for 
the Treasure Island Brig. As a result, the Sheriffs 
Department expended only $223,756 of its Fiscal Year 
1999-2000 budget of $5,195,625 for the Treasure Island 
Brig. Ms. Mariani advises that the remaining balance of 
$4,971,869 was used: (a) to fund the existing 42 
employees that were intended to be transferred to the 
Treasure Island Brig but instead remained at San Bruno 
Jail, (b) to fill the 24 positions approved in Fiscal Year 
1997-1998 for the Treasure Island Brig, but now needed 
at the San Bruno Jail No. 3. Ms. Mariani advises that any 
additional salary savings realized from position vacancies 
was used to fund deficits in other accounts in the Sheriff's 
Department's budget. 

7. Ms. Mariani states in Attachment I that: 

"...While the jail population has leveled off over 
the past year, it is again on the increase. We 
cannot predict the size of our jail population in the 
future and we will not have a new jail facility [to 
replace the San Bruno Jail No. 3] for at least three 
years. Therefore, it is only prudent that we protect 
the investment the City has made in [the Treasure 
Island Brig] as a hedge against future population 
increases. It is also insurance against another 
Federal lawsuit should the jails become 
overcrowded during this period." 

Ms. Mariani advises that, at this time, the Sheriffs 
Department will take advantage of using the Treasure 
Island Brig for training, which will be greatly enhanced 
by having access to actual jail cells. Ms. Mariani reports 
that due to the County's large inmate population, which 
currently consist of approximately 1,900 inmates in the 
City's eight jails, the Sheriffs Department has no other 
vacant jail space available for training. Prior to the 
Sheriffs Department beginning to use the Treasure 
Island Brig for training purposes in Fiscal Year 1999- 
2000, the Sheriffs Department was required to hold 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

training in a conference room located in City-owned office 
space at 555 7 th Street. Ms. Mariani notes that this 
conference space does not meet the Sheriffs Department's 
training needs because it is particularly important for 
newly-hired officers to gain training experience in a 
actual jail facility as opposed to using a simulated 
environment. In addition, the Sheriffs Department will 
have access to the Treasure Island Brig to house prisoners 
during emergencies. 

8. The proposed sublease states that both the City and the 
Treasure Island Development Authority "...may 
terminate this Sublease prior to the Expiration Date [of 
May 15, 2005] by giving to the other party written notice 
of intent to terminate the Sublease one year prior to the 
intended date of termination." 

9. According to Mr. Proud, the Treasure Island 
Development Authority hired a private firm, Clifford 
Associates, to appraise the value of the subject Treasure 
Island Brig facility. On July 21, 2000, the appraiser 
determined that the fair market rent for the Brig facility 
would be $1.1 million per year. Mr. Proud advises that 
the Treasure Island Development Authority has agreed to 
charge the Sheriffs Department an annual rent of 
$250,000, or 22.7 percent of the Brig's annual rental 
market value, since the Sheriffs Department will only be 
authorized to use the Brig facility for 90 days, or 
approximately one-fourth of a year, per year for training 
purposes. Mr. Steve Alms of the Real Estate Division of 
the Administrative Services Department has reviewed the 
appraisal of the Brig facility commissioned by the 
Treasure Island Development Authority and agreed that 
the rent charged to the Sheriffs Department represents 
fair market value. 

10. The subject sublease states that the Sheriffs 
Department: 

"...shall not permit any inmates to be housed at 
the premises who have a known record of violent 
behavior, including without limitation, a known 
record for murder, manslaughter, assault, battery, 
rape, or sexual molestation. Subtenant [Sheriffs 
Department] shall not permit any portion of the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Premises to be used as a shooting range by any of 
the Subtenant's peace officers, personnel, or 
invitees. Subtenant acknowledges that there are 
residential dwellings and a public elementary 
school in the general vicinity of the Premises, and 
Subtenant agrees to use good faith efforts to 
prevent any interference with such residential and 
public school activities by Subtenant's use of the 
Premises." 

Mr. Proud advises that the Treasure Island Development 
Authority plans to give residents on Treasure Island 30 
days notice of any plans of the Sheriffs Department to 
house inmates in the Brig facility in non-emergency 
situations. In addition, Ms. Mariani advises that the 
training to be conducted at the Brig by the Sheriffs 
Department will not involve any live ammunition or 
chemical agents. 

11. Under the proposed sublease, the Sheriffs 
Department indemnifies the Treasure Island 
Development Authority and the Navy, as Master 
Landlord, and their agents and employees as defined in 
the lease. The proposed sublease states: 

"Subtenant [Sheriffs Department], on behalf of 
itself and Subtenant's Agents, covenants and agrees 
that the Indemnified Parties [described above] and 
Master Landlord shall not be responsible for or 
liable to, and, to the fullest extent allowed by any 
Laws, Subtenant hereby waives all rights against 
the Indemnified Parties and releases them from, 
any and all Losses, including, but not limited to, 
incidental and consequential damages, relating to 
any injury, accident or death of any person or loss or 
damage to any property, in or about the Premises, 
from any cause whatsoever, including without 
limitation, partial or complete collapse of any 
improvements on the Premises due to an 
earthquake or subsidence, except only to the extent 
such Losses are caused by the negligence or willful 
misconduct of the Indemnified Parties." 

According to Mr. Donnell Choy of the City Attorney's 
Office, the indemnification provision contained in the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



sublease is standard in all subleases entered into by the 
Treasure Island Development Authority with any entity 
wishing to sublease property on Treasure Island. Mr. 
Choy advises that if there were another large earthquake 
comparable to or greater in magnitude than the 1989 
Loma Prieta Earthquake during the term of this sublease, 
the City would not be able to look to the Treasure Island 
Development Authority to recover any losses arising 
therefrom, according to Mr. Choy. Mr. Choy advises that 
when the City is acting as the landlord in its own leases, 
the City includes similarly broad indemnification 
provisions in its leases. 

12. In summary, the Budget Analyst notes the following: 
(a) since Fiscal Year 1997-1998, the Sheriffs Department 
has expended a total of $1,099,409 (Attachment II) in 
capital expenditures to convert the Treasure Island Brig 
into a jail usable by the City; (b) the Sheriffs Department 
originally intended to house approximately 130 to 140 
inmates at Treasure Island Brig in an effort to relieve 
overcrowding at the San Bruno Jail No. 3; (c) in order to 
staff the converted Treasure Island Brig, the Sheriffs 
Department received 24 new positions during Fiscal Year 
1997-1998; (d) the Sheriffs Department was also 
budgeted funds to operate the Treasure Island Brig as a 
full-time jail, including $5,173,526 in Fiscal Year 1998- 
1999 and $5,195,625 in Fiscal Year 1999-2000; (e) such 
operating costs included funding for 42 existing positions, 
which the Sheriffs Department planned to transfer from 
the San Bruno Hail No. 3 to the Treasure Island Brig, but 
was unable to do so due to increased staffing needs at the 
San Bruno Jail No. 3; (f) because the Treasure Island Brig 
configuration is such that its operation is more labor- 
intensive than other City jail facilities, the Sheriffs 
Department was unable to operate the Treasure Island 
Brig due to staffing limitations and, therefore, expended 
the additional funds elsewhere in the City jail system to 
compensate for an increase in the prisoner population; 
and, (g) by requesting that the Board of Supervisors 
approve the subject sublease of the Treasure Island Brig, 
the Sheriffs Department is now proposing to use the 
Treasure Island Brig for the alternative purpose of 
training officers and maintaining space for emergency 
overflow housing of inmates. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



13. The Finance Committee, at its February 28, 2001 
meeting, requested that the Sheriffs Department account 
for all funds appropriated to the Treasure Island Brig 
since 1997. Attachment IV, provided by the Sheriffs 
Department, contains the Sheriffs Department's response 
to the Finance Committee. The Budget Analyst notes the 
following from the information provided by the Sheriffs 
Department: 4 

(a) During Fiscal Year 1997-1998, the Sheriffs 
Department expended a total of $329,570 on 
operating costs at the Treasure Island Brig, or 
$702,896 less than the $1,032,466 appropriated by 
the Board of Supervisors for such purposes. Ms. 
Mariani advises that the unexpended balance of 
$702,896 was returned to the General Fund at the 
close of Fiscal Year 1997-1998. 

(b) During Fiscal Year 1998-1999, the Sheriffs 
Department expended a total of $547,337 on 
operating costs at the Treasure Island Brig, or 
$4,698,881 less than the $5,246,218 appropriated for 
such purposes. 5 Ms. Mariani advises that of the 
unexpended balance of $4,698,881, a total of 
$3,257,766 was transferred to cover costs at the San 
Bruno Jails, Nos. 3 and 7, (largely to fund the 42 
existing positions that the Sheriffs Department had 
planned to transfer to the Treasure Island Brig but 
was unable to do so due to increased staffing needs 
at the San Bruno Jails). Ms. Mariani advises that 
the remaining $1,441,115 of the $4,698,881 
unexpended balance was used to help offset deficits 
in Overtime and training costs due to vacancies. 



(c) For Fiscal Year 1999-2000, Ms. Mariani advises that 
the Sheriffs Department originally included 
$5,195,625 in its budget request to fund operating 
costs at the Treasure Island Brig. However, due to 



* The Budget Analyst notes that the budget totals in Attachment IV differ from those in Attachment 
II because Attachment IV does not include capital or equipment costs. 

5 According to Ms. Mariani, this appropriation amount of $5,246,218 for Fiscal Year 1998-1999 
includes encumbrances carried over from the previous fiscal year and is therefore $72,692 more 
than the appropriation amount of $5,173,526 shown in Comment No. 6 above, previously provided 
by Ms. Mariani. 

ROARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
21 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

insufficient funds to staff the Treasure Island Brig at 
full capacity, this $5,195,625 originally designated 
for the Treasure Island Brig in the Sheriffs 
Department's budget request were transferred by the 
Mayor's Budget Office to the budget for the San 
Bruno Jails before the Sheriffs Department's budget 
was submitted to the Board of Supervisors for 
approval, according to Ms. Mariani. In addition, for 
Fiscal Year 1999-2000, the Board of Supervisors 
appropriated a Reserve for Jail Overcrowding of 
$2,500,000 for the Sheriffs Department in the event 
that the Sheriff was able to staff the Treasure Island 
Brig if necessary due to overcrowding in other City 
jails. Instead, this Reserve of $2,500,000 was 
subsequently released by the Board of Supervisors to 
help fund the Sheriffs Department's Fiscal Year 
1999-2000 supplemental appropriation of $4,695,097 
used to fund overspending, including Overtime, and 
other unforeseen costs in the department (File No. 
00-0774). 

The Budget Analyst notes that the Sheriffs 
Department's budget for operating costs at the San 
Bruno Jails increased in Fiscal Year 1999-2000 by 
$7,585,091, or more than 75 percent, from 
$10,066,836 in Fiscal Year 1998-1999 to $17,651,927 
in Fiscal Year 1999-2000. 6 As shown in Attachment 
IV, the San Bruno Jails budget ended Fiscal Year 
1999-2000 with a surplus of $3,120,865 ($3,308,468 
less $187,603), which was used to help offset deficits 
in Overtime and training costs due to vacancies, 
according to Ms. Mariani. 



14. At its February 28, 2001 meeting, the Finance 
Committee also raised questions about the appraisal that 
determined the fair market value of the subject Treasure 
Island Brig facility, completed by Clifford Associates, a 
private firm hired by the Treasure Island Development 
Authority. On July 21, 2000, the appraiser determined 
that the fair market rent for the Brig facility would be 
$1.1 million annually, on which the Treasure Island 



6 The budget figures for San Bruno Jail No. 3 include salaries and benefits required as a 
result of an earlier lawsuit, shown as the "Besk Case" in Attachment IV. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Development Authority based the $250,000 annual rent it 
proposes to charge the Sheriffs Department for limited 
use of the Treasure Island Brig under the subject lease, 
retroactive to July 1, 2000. 7 According to the Real Estate 
Division, Clifford Associates reports that this appraisal of 
the Brig facility did not include the $1,099,409 in capital 
improvements, which the Sheriffs Department had spent 
since Fiscal Year 1997-1998 for the Treasure Island Brig, 
as described in Attachment III. Mr. Proud advises that 
the Treasure Island Development Authority did not offer 
the Sheriffs Department any reimbursement or rent 
credits to compensate for the improvements completed by 
the Sheriffs Department, because: (a) the Treasure Island 
Development Authority leases all of its facilities on an "as 
is" basis; (b) the appraisal of the Treasure Island Brig did 
not include any of the Sheriffs Department's 
improvements to the Brig in evaluating the fair market 
rent of the facility; and (c) the Sheriffs Department 
elected to complete such improvements based on the 
Sheriffs Department's assessment of the improvements 
needed to operate the Brig as a jail facility. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



7 As stated previously, the Treasure Island Development Authority agreed to charge the 
Sheriffs Department an annual rent of $250,000, or 22.7 percent of the Brig's annual rental 
market value of $1.1 million, since the Sheriffs Department will only be authorized to use 
the Brig facility for 90 days, or approximately one-fourth of a year, per year. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
23 



City and County of San Francisco /^l°H^ 



OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF * ^^IWSr V* sheriff 




Attachment I 
Paee 1 ot 2 



•A Michael Hennessey 



415 - 554 - 7225 



February 20, 2001 
Ref. No.: CFO 01-002 

TO: Budget Analyst's Office 

FROM: Jean M. Marianijfchief Financial Officer 

SUBJECT: Lease of the Treasure Island Brig 

During 1997, the City was under a federal court order to resolve jail 
overcrowding and conditions at County Jail #3 in San Bruno. In 
conjunction with the Mayor and the City Attorney, the Sheriff proposed 
opening the Treasure Island Brig to reduce the population at CJ#3 as 
part of the settlement of the lawsuit. The Board of Supervisors 
approved a supplemental appropriation that year, anticipating 
occupancy of the Brig sometime in the following fiscal year (see Lt. 
LaVigne's February 9, 2001 memorandum for a discussion of the 
capital Improvements related to the facility). 

When the final draft of the settlement was presented to the court, use 
of the Treasure Island Brig to house prisoners was not Included. 
However, greatly increased staffing at CJ #3 was part of the 
settlement, so the staff approved for TI were assigned to CJ #3 
instead. 

Because the jail population was continuing to increase during that 
time, we were concerned that we would have need of the Brig for 
overflow purposes. We do not have other appropriate vacant space for 
housing prisoners. In those instances in the past where we have had 
significant and serious overcrowding, the Sheriff has been forced to 
release prisoners from custody early (or rent space in Alameda 
County's jail, now unavailable). 



RCOM 456, CTY HAUL 

i or. carlton a. ooodlstt ?uacs san ftv>ncis<:o. ca B-«ioa fax <;s - 5fr* - 7cse 

24 



Attachment I 
Page 2 of 2 



While the jail papulation had leveled off over the past year, it is again 
on the increase. We cannot predict the size of our jail population in the 
future and we will not have a new jail facility (to replace CJ #3) for at 
least three years. Therefore, it is only prudent that we protect the 
investment the City has made in this facility as a hedge against future 
population increases. It is also insurance against another federal 
lawsuit should the jails become overcrowded during this period. 

In the interim, the Sheriff's Department has taken advantage of the 
facility for training. State training standards for deputy sheriffs require 
four to six weeks of core training in jail management techniques 
Defore working in a jail, as well as 24 hours of annual training for 
continuing certification. Having actual jail cells available enhances 
training in cell removal techniques, etc. 

We have used the Treasure Island Brig for prisoners twice, during the 
2000 millennium weekend, to free up space at the 425-7 ch St. jail in 
case there were mass arrests, and for a multi-jurisdiction mass-arrest 
coordination site with the U.S. Marshal and the FBI. 

The attached spreadsheet presents the Sheriff's Department 
expenditures to date for the Treasure Island Brig. Our estimated 
annual costs, including lease, utilities, and maintenance expense, are 
approximately $373,620. The Mayor's Office included and the Board of 
Supervisors approved $260,871 for this lease payment in our 2000-01 
budget. 

In 1997-98 and 1998-99, the Sheriff's Department budget included 
appropriations of $1,699,955 and $5,989,987 for operating the 
Treasure Island Brig. In 1999-00, we combined the TI Brig budget with 
the San Bruno budget, and used the vacant positions in the TI budget 
to meet the terms of the federal court settlement. The TI Brig is a very 
labor-intensive jail, less cost-effective to operate than the Sheriff's 
other facilities. The Sheriff has never received full funding to operate 
the TI Brig and all other jails in the system at full capacity. The 
funding levels presumed partial closure of several floors of CJ #3, and 
a transfer of those Inmates and deputies to TI. 



25 



30 "d "IblOl 



Attachment II 



cn 
o 

fi 

n 
to 



:=r 

0) 

M 

H- 
Ml 
Mi 



a 
to 

pj 

M 

rt 

3 

(T> 

3 





* 




H 


■n 


o 


Equipment 
Workorders 


^ 


CIS 


a 


CD 


co 






Er 

2 

ro 

o 




o 

3" 

03 


D) 

o 

< 

3D 

o 


o 

o 

[0 

c 

o 

o 


0) 

5" 

- 1 

co_ 

CO 


o 

Cfi 


S 

CD 

3 

u 

o 
cn 


o 
o 

— 1 

o 

03_ 


O 

o 
9 


U 

— i 

CD* 














a 






c 
ro' 




O 

CO 
CO 

3 

o 

CO 


CO 


cn 

a 

en 




























cn 


1 












CO 




cn 
















_!. 


_k 








CO 




-J 




ro 


CD 




CD 




ro 


ro 


CO 








roi 


CO 




CO 


CO 


-^ 


■£* 




CO 


o 


CO 




























1 "**1 








roi 


"cni 


— i. 


cn 


cn 


CO 




ro 


co 


1 








co 


cm 


cr, 


J> 


CO 


o 




*> 


cn 


CO 








co| i 


Ol i 


CO 


co 


o 


ro 




ro 


CO 


Co 




































































— ». 




cn 






_x 










CO 


CD 








CO 




ro 




cn 


o 


Cn 


_x 


— i 


cn 


■A 


CO 








en 




Cn 




-* 


o 


CO 


ro 


— * 


CO 


ro 


CO 








"o 




CC 




M 


c 


"co 


"o 


CO 


CO 


CC 








— k 




5 


ICO 


o 


5 


cn 


Ol 


— ». 


->j 


Cfi 






ex 
S3 


i 


CD 


. JM 


->i 


—J. 


cn 


o 


""*■ 


ro 
























_J» 








ro 










_ 


-J 


_ » 


—A 


—X 


CO 


Cfi 








CO 






_ i. 


CO 


o 


cn 


— j. 


cn 


cr. 


CO 


Cfi 






























CO 








Vj 






CO 


cn 


_* 


-*J 


ro 


— ^ 


— i 


CO 


r 








Cn 






CO 


cn 


J> 


re 


CO 


O 


CO 


cn 


— 








co 


i 


1 


CO 


O (D ^ 
1 1 


co 


cn 


CO 


03 


o 








! 1 

iimi 




ro 








p. 










k»M 




1 o 








s 








dI-». 






CO 










I 














o 








"ro 








CO 


co wo 






4> 








-^ 








CO 


-vi ! -x co 












co 


■ 


I 


1 


i 


— x 


ro 


-*■ 


■C*. 


1 


_Ll 








N 




_». 


























CO 




o 




—i. 


— k 


_i. 




_1 


cn 


H 








CO 




CO 


i <° 


CD 


03 




ro 


O 


K3 


o 








cn 




CO 


-"H--^ 


CD 


CO 


CO 


N 


JO 


ro 


sr 








W 




V 


"co! "cn 


CD 


N3 


To 


'ro 


Vilui 


5T 










o 


CDl -MOD 


03 


C71 


■t* 


» 


CO 












CO 


CD 


r 


O 


-vj 


ro 


c 
i 


CC 


-i 







... 


i 


Cc 


!V 


i 

i 




! 


i 












"tei 






■> 


O 


i 








CC 


-j 




^ 






u 


> cc 


I 






N 


C 


ro oi r; 

i « 
























cr 


> a 


) 






C 


CO 


» o O i c 






N 


i N 


> 






C 


I C 


O O CJ 






c 


J C 


3 1 


1 


i 


c 


) CO 


) o o — 



s 

CO 

u 

B 
-i 
ra 

ITT 



CO 

3 



01 

3 

o 
' cn' 
co 3 2 

sr o. co 

° ro 2 

Tin' 

© <n' 3 

8 5?" 
= | g 

o o 
3 TJ 

a. cj 

a I 



26 




Attachment III 
Page 1 ot 2 



San Francisco Sheriffs Department 

INTER-OFFCE CORRESPONDENCE 

Sheriffs Bureau of Building Services 

Attn: Ms. Jean Mariani \JjQ/) Friday, February 09, 2001 

From; Lt, Michael La Vigne Mt--£p^ — 

Subj: Capital Improvements at me Treasure Island Brig 

The following is a short history and accounting of the capital improvements the 3FSD has 
made to date at the Treasure Island Brig. 

1 996- In anticipation of the CCSF taking over the Treasure Island & Yerba Buena Island 
properties from the U. S. Navy, inspections of the various buildings were performed by CCSF and 
California State officials having jurisdiction In mid 1996 (May & June) the SFSD received copies 
of seismic, building code, and fire/life safety code deficiency reports from the CCSF, California 
Board of Corrections, and California State Fire Marshal. The SFSD also reviewed the Brig to 
determine what security or operational modifications would have to be made to accommodate 
prisoners. 

1997 - Based upon the above surveys and reports, the SFSD developed a scope of work to 
correct the code, security and operational issues. From this scope of work a capital budget was 
developed and submitted to the CCSF as supplemental budget request in August of that year. This 
supplemental budget request, along with an ordinance permitting the SFSD to contract for the 
work, was approved by the CCSF Board of Supervisors in November 1997. The scope of work 
was divided into three basic contracts as indicated below: 

Electronic Security System Improvements: 

Scope: Replace central control paneL add CCTV cameras and monitors, repair and replace locks 

and moving gates. 
Cost: 5240,000 
Time: January - April 1 998 

Prisoner Exercise Yard Improvements: 

Scope: Replaces old fencing with new double security fence and paves over gravel exercise yards. 

Cost: $340,000 

Time: Jury -November 1998 



Page 1 of 2 
27 



Attachment III 
Page 2 of 2 



Fire/Life Safety Upgrades: 

Scope: Replaces old fire alarm system, apply spray-on cementitious fire proofing on underside of 
roofs and roofing supports, replaces several doors and frames with code compliant 
assemblies, remodels paths of travel to provide clear fire exit routes, and upgrades and 
expands the fire sprinkler system. 

Cost: $800,000 

Time: September 1998 - March 1999 

In addition to the above, the SFSD has made improvements to the temperature control system of 
the Brig, as well as installed some kitchen equipment. 

The CCSF still has some disability access issues at the Brig, but at this point we have closed out 
all construction contracts, and any disability access issues would be addressed in the future. 

If you have any questions, please calL 



Page 2 of 2 

28 



Zity and County of San Francisco 



DFFICE OF THE SHERIFF 




Attachment IV 
Page 1 of 5 



Michael Hennessey 

25] SHERIFF 

415 -554 - 7225 



MEMORANDUM 



March 6, 2001 
Reference: CFO 01-004 



TO: 



FROM: 



Finance Committee Members 



Jean MarianirChief Financial Officer 



SUBJECT: Sheriff's Department Expenditures, Treasure Island Brig 
. (File 01-0145) 

You have requested additional details on the Sheriff's Department 
expenditures related to budget allocations for the Treasure Island (TI) 
Brig. 

The following appropriation and expenditure information is from 
FAMIS, based on the year-end reports for each fiscal year and reflects 
the General Fund operating budgets for each budget unit indicated. 

Following are the 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 appropriations, 
expenditures and balances for the TI Brig, the San Bruno Jail complex 
(which includes County Jail (CJ) #3, the subject of the Jones lawsuit, 
and CJ #7) and the Besk Case (which aggregates expenditures 
resulting from a previous CJ #3 lawsuit). These three budget units 
include all positions assigned to CJ #3. 



5 W 456, OTY HALL 

1 ?■ CARLTON B. COODLETT PLACE 



29 

SAM FRANCISCO. CA 94102 



FAX 415 - 554 • 7050 



Sheriff's Department 
March 6, 2001 
Page 2 



Attachment IV 
!Page 2 of 5 



Fiscal Year 1997-98 Operating Budget Appropriations and Expenditures 



Index Code 


060313 


060310 


060311 


TOTALS 


FY 1997-98 


Treasure 

Island Brig 


San Bruno Jails 


Besk Case - CJ 
#3 


San Bruno/TI 












SALARIES 










Appropriation 


649,696 


6,200,156 


1,687,460 


8,537,312 


Expenditure 


120,853 


6,331,652 


1,605,136 


8,057,641 


Balance 


528,843 


(131,496) 


82,324 


479,671 










BENEFITS 








Appropriation 


194,909 


2,063,663 


576,978 


2,835,550 


Expenditure 


28,242 


2,008,983 


513,440 


2,550,665 


Balance 


166,667 


54,680 


63,538 


284,885 












SERVICES 










Appropriation 


88,986 


545,000 


5,000 


638,986 


Expenditure 


91,940 


436,235 




528,175 


Balance 


(2,954) 


108,765 


5,000 


110,811 












SUPPLIES 










Appropriation 


98,875 


1,994,942 


- 


2,093,817 


Expenditure 


88,535 


2,056,278 


- 


2,144,813 


Balance 


10,340 


(61,3361 


- 


(50,996) 






1 1 


OTHER DEPTS. 




1 ! 


Appropriation 


- 


358,180 


358,180 


Expenditure 


- 


- 


- 


Balance 


- 


358,180 


- 


358,180 












TOTALS 










Appropriation 


1,032,466 


11,161,941 


2,269,438 


14,463,845 


Expenditure 


329,570 


10,833,148 


2,118,576 


13,281,294 


Balance 


702,896 


328,793 


150,862 


1,182,551 



For Fiscal Year 1997-98, these three budget units had total operating 
budget appropriations of $14,463,845, expenditures of $13,281,294 
and a remaining balance of $1,182,551, which reverted to the General 
Fund at year end because the department overall had a remaining 
General Fund balance in its operating budget of $1,594,047. 



30 



Sheriff's Department 
March 6, 2001 
Page 3 



Attachment IV 
Page 3 ot i 



Fiscal Year 1998-99 Operating Budget Appropriations and Expenditures 



Index Code 


060313 


060310 


060311 


TOTALS 


FY 1998-99 


Treasure 
Island Briq 


San Bruno Jails 


Besk Case - CJ 
#3 


San Bruno/TI 












SALARIES 










Appropriation 


3,642,589 


4,240,557 


1,766,571 


9,649,717 


Expenditure 


312,372 


6,850,917 


1,800,380 


8,963,669 


Balance 


3,330,217 


(2,610,360) 


(33,809) 


686,048 










- 


BENEFITS 








- 


Appropriation 


1,031,937 


339,347 


366,966 


1,738,250 


Expenditure 


58,311 


1,463,416 


336,247 


1,857,974 


Balance 


973,626 


(1,124,069) 


30,719 


(119,724) 










- 


SERVICES 








- 


Appropriation 


136,000 


544,500 


5,000 


685,500 


Expenditure ' 


76,447 


602,000 


- 


678,447 


Balance 


59,553 


(57,500) 


5,000 


7,053 










- 


SUPPLIES 








- 


Appropriation 


435,692 


2,406,018 


- 


2,841,710 


Expenditure 


100,207 


2,182,872 


- 


2,283,079 


Balance 


335,485 


223,146 


- 


558,631 










- 


OTHER DEPTS. 








- 


Appropriation 


- 


397,877 




397,877 


Expenditure 


- 


86,860 




86,860 


Balance 


- 


311,017 


- 


311,017 










- 


TOTALS 








- 


Appropriation 


5,246,218 


7,928,299 


2,138,537 


15,313,054 


Expenditure 


547,337 


11,186,065 


2,136,627 


13,870,029 


Balance 


4,698,881 


(3,257,766) 


1,910 


1,443,025 



As shown in the table, the TI Brig balance of $4,698,881 was offset by 
a San Bruno deficit of $3,257,766. While the budget transferred 
approximately $3.7 million of salaries, benefits and positions from San 
Bruno to TI, TI did not open and, because the jail system was over 
capacity, San Bruno continued to use the transferred positions at CJ 
#3. The remaining balance in these three budget units and from other 
parts of the department was used to offset a deficit of $3,591,064 in 
the Department Services budget unit. 



31 



Sheriff's Department 
March 6, 2001 
Page 4 



Attachment IV 
Page h of 5 



Fiscal Year 1999-00 Operating Budget Appropriations and Expenditures 



Index Code 


060313 


060310 


060311 TOTALS 


FY 1999-2000 


Treasure 
Island Briq 


San Bruno Jails 


Besk Case - CJ 
#3 


San Bruno/TI 












SALARIES 










Appropriation 


- 


10,014,244 


1,883,781 


11,898,025 


Expenditure 


89,356 


7,583,519 


2,094,710 


9,767,585 


Balance 


(89,356) 


2,430,725 


(210,929) 


2,130,440 










- 


BENEFITS 








- 


Appropriation 


- 


1,901,953 


389,383 


2,291,336 


Expenditure 


16,190 


1,582,723 


371,057 


1,969,970 


Balance 


(16,190) 


319,230 


18,326 


321,366 










- 


SERVICES 








- 


Appropriation 


- 


1,079,698 


5,000 


1,084,698 


Expenditure 


103,113 


503,952 


- 


607,065 


Balance 


(103,113) 


575,746 


5,000 


477,633 










- 


SUPPLIES 








- 


Appropriation 


424 


1,927,611 


- 


1,928,035 


Expenditure 


10,149 


2,161,758 


- 


2,171,907 


Balance 


(9,725) 


(234,147) 


- 


(243,872) 










- 


OTHER DEPTS. 








- 


Appropriation 


48,640 


450,257 




498,897 


Expenditure 


1,398 


233,343 




234,741 


Balance 


47,242 


216,914 


- 


264,156 










TOTALS 








- 


Appropriation 


49,064 


15,373,763 


2,278,164 


17,700,991 


Expenditure 


220,206 


12,065,295 


2,465,767 


14,751,268 


Balance 


(171,142) 


3,308,468 


(187,603) 


2,949,723 



In 1999-00, because sufficient funding was not appropriated to staff at 
capacity the TI Brig and all other jails in the system, the TI budget was 
collapsed into the San Bruno budget. The TI positions were then 
identified as those positions agreed to as part of the Jones settlement 
which occurred late in 1998-99. Again, the year-end balance was used, 
along with other department balances, to offset the Department 
Services budget unit deficit of $6,224,337. 



32 



Attachment- IV 

Sheriff's Department 
March 6, 2001 
Page 5 



The deficits in the Department Services budget unit result from the 
manner in which positions are budgeted in the Sheriff's Department. 
We list positions in the appropriate budget unit to reflect the 
authorized staffing for each Department facility and program. This 
authorized staffing accounts for every department position shown in 
the budget. This creates a mismatch between budget and spending 
when a position is assigned to academy training. For costing purposes, 
training is allocated as a department-wide function, so the academy- 
assigned position is paid from the Department Services budget, even 
though the position is budgeted in another unit. The Sheriff's 
Department 2001-02 budget request includes a reallocation to correct 
this mismatch. 

If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (415) 
554-4316. 



cc: Gail Johnson, Clerk, Finance Committee 
Ed Harrington, Controller 
Erin McGrath, Mayor's Office 
Taylor Emerson, Mayor's Office 
Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 



33 



- Memo to Finance Committee 
March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 3 - File 01-0219 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Police Department 

Hearing to consider the release of reserved funds (FY 
1999-2000 budget) in the amount of $180,000 to fund the 
Police Crisis Intervention Program. 

$180,000 

General Fund monies appropriated and reserved by the 
Board of Supervisors in the FY 1999-2000 Police 
Department budget. 

At the close of the FY 1999-2000 budget hearings, the 
Board of Supervisors approved an appropriation of 
$180,000 for the Police Crisis Intervention Program and 
placed the subject funds on reserve, pending submission 
of Program budget and curriculum details. The Police 
Crisis Intervention Program is a curriculum which would 
be taught by mental health professionals to Police Officers 
and Sergeant/Inspectors about their interactions with 
persons with mental disabilities. 

According to Sergeant Michael Sullivan of the Police 
Department, as part of its FY 1999-2000 budget 
development, the Police Department proposed to integrate 
mental health training into its training curriculum. The 
subject funds were carried forward to the FY 2000-01 
General Fund budget and held in reserve in anticipation 
of Program budget and curriculum details. To date, the 
curriculum has been identified, interviews with potential 
instructors began on February 20, 2001 and the first of 
two Police Crisis Intervention Programs is scheduled to 
begin on May 21, 2001. 

Approval of the proposed release of reserved funds in the 
amount of $180,000 would cover the cost of conducting 
two four-day Police Crisis Intervention Programs. 
According to Ms. Helynna Brooke of the City's Mental 
Health Board, a State-mandated advisory board 
appointed by the Board of Supervisors, the first training 
program would take place May 21 through May 24, 2001 
and the other would take place in October of 2001. Each 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



Program would cost approximately $89,986.39, a 
cost of $179,972.78 for two Programs. 



total 



The Police Crisis Intervention Program would provide 
training to police officers on how to respond to situations 
involving mentally ill people and avoid injuries to both 
officers and civilians. The Program would include, but is 
not limited to, the following topics: signs and symptoms of 
mental illness that may require assistance from mental 
health professionals, crisis intervention, legal issues, 
suicide prevention, and review of Police Department 
policies and procedures. The Police Crisis Intervention 
Program was developed by the Police Department, Mental 
Health Board and Community Mental Health Services. 

The summary budget for the proposed Program, provided 
by the Police Department, is as follows: 



Salaries of Police Officer and Sergeant/ 
Inspector Trainees at Overtime Rates* 


$121,675.28 


Reproduction 


3,461.58 


Van Rental 


659.82 


Catering (see Comment No. 3) 


10,000.00 


Room Rental (see Comment No. 1) 


5,200.00 


Stipends (see Comment No. 2) 


4,500.00 


Equipment 


6,120.00 


Police Administration Costs at 
Overtime Rates** 


18,056.10 


Evaluation Costs (see Comment No. 4) 


6,300.00 


Consultant Costs (see Comment No. 5) 


4,000.00 


TOTAL 


$179,972.78 



* Salaries of Police Officers at overtime rates includes (1) 44-Q4 Step 
4 Police Officers at an hourly rate of $47.8875 for 40 hours per Police 
Officer, or a total of 1,760 hours, plus fringe benefits ($84,282 in 
salaries plus $1,281.08 in fringe benefits equals $85,563.08) and (2) 
16-Q52/382 Sergeant/Inspectors at an hourly overtime rate of $55,575 
for 40 hours per Sergeant/Inspector, or a total of 640 hours, plus 
fringe benefits ($35,568 in salaries plus $544.20 in fringe benefits 
equals $36,112.20). $85,563.08 plus $36,112.20 equals $121,675.28. 

**Police Administration Costs includes 8-Q52/383 Sergeant/ 
Inspectors at an hourly overtime rate of $55,575 for 40 hours each, or 
a total of 320 hours, plus fringe benefits ($17,784 in salaries plus 
$272.10 in fringe benefits equals $18,056.10). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

The Attachment, provided by the Police Department, 
contains budget details for the summary budget on the 
previous page. As shown in the table on the previous page 
and the Attachment to this report, $139,731.38 
($121,675.28 plus $18,056.10) or 77.6 percent of the total 
budget of $179,972.78 for the training program would 
fund the Police Department's overtime salary costs for 
Police Officers and Sergeant/Inspectors who will receive 
the training and assist in administering the training 
program. 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Brooke, the first 40-hour Police Crisis 

Intervention Program would be held May 21 through May 
24, 2001 at Fort Mason. The total room rental would cost . 
$5,200, which includes the room rental rate of $650 per 
day for two four-day Programs, a total of eight days. The 
first Program would include 30 volunteer participants, 
including patrol officers, investigation bureau officers, 
and administrative officers. Each Program consists of 
four, 10-hour days, which is the length of a Police Officer's 
shift. 

2. Guest speakers, including mental health specialists, 
representatives from non-profit organizations and family 
members of people with mental illness would be given a 
stipend of $150 per day. Ms. Brooke reports that each 
Program would have 15 guest speakers, or a total of 30 
guest speakers for two Programs, at a total cost of $4,500. 

3. Ms. Brooke reports that as of the writing of this report, 
the Police Department has not selected a catering firm to 
provide catering services for the training sessions and 
graduation reception. Therefore, the Police Department is 
unable to provide budget details on the $10,000.00 in 
catering services costs. 

4. Ms. Brooke reports that as of the writing of this report, 
the Police Department has not selected a consulting firm 
to provide evaluation services for the training sessions. 
Therefore, the Police Department is unable to provide 
budget details on the $6,300 in evaluation services costs. 

5. The non-profit Intergroup Clearinghouse was selected 
in October of 1999 on a sole source basis to provide 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

discussion facilitation services between the community, 
Mental Health Board, Department of Public Health, 
Community Health Services and the Police Department 
during the planning of the Police Crisis Intervention 
Program. According to Ms. Brooke, the Intergroup 
Clearinghouse is the only non-profit organization in the 
City that has worked with community advocates for 
people with mental illness and with the Department of 
Public Health and Police Department. From October of 
1999 through March of 2000, the Intergroup 
Clearinghouse provided discussion facilitation services 
prior to the authorization of release of the subject funds 
by the Board of Supervisors at a cost of $2,000 based on 
17 hours of facilitation services at an hourly rate of 
$100.00 plus 6 hours of preparation at an hourly rate of 
$50.00 ($1,700 plus $300 equals $2,000). To date, the 
Intergroup Clearinghouse has not yet been paid. In the 
future, the Intergroup Clearinghouse will provide meeting 
facilitation services at approximately six meetings for an 
additional $2,000 based on 20 hours of services at an 
estimated hourly rate of $100.00 to be held between the 
first and second Programs, or June through October of 
2001. 

6. According to Mr. Tom Strong of the Police 
Department, 77.6 percent of the total budget for the 
training program would cover the Police Department's 
overtime salary costs to backfill the positions of the Police 
Officers and Sergeant/Inspectors while they receive the 
training or assist in administering the training program. 
Allocating these funds to cover overtime salary costs 
would allow the Police Department to continue normal 
Police duties while the training programs are being 
conducted. 

Recommendations: 1. Continue to reserve $10,000 for the catering services 

pending submission of budget details to the Finance 
Committee. 

2. Continue to reserve $6,300 for consulting firm 
evaluation services pending submission of budget details 
to the Finance Committee. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

37 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



3. Release reserved funds totaling $163,700 ($180,000 
request less $10,000 for catering services less $6,300 for 
consultant evaluation costs). 

4. Approval of release of the $2,000 for the Intergroup 
Clearinghouse contract costs is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors since the $2,000 has been incurred 
prior to Board of Supervisors approval of the Police 
Department's requested release of reserved funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment 



ynllea Crla la Intervention Tr*JLnlniC Bu4g«rt 
Two - 40 hour Trainings 



Salary (Backfill! 

22 -Q4 Police Officers Step 4 $42,781.54 

(Rate of $47.8875 plus 1.52% fringe) 

8 - Q52/382 Set/Inspectors $18,056.10 

(Rate of $55,575 plus 153% fringe) 



total $60,837.64 



Training Manual, resource cards, 
SFPD Disability awareness Guide 
City Hall Print Shop 

Van Rental Thrifty Car Rental 
1 Day 3 vans @ $109.97 each 

Catering 

Continental breakfast 
Lunch, graduation/ reception 
Chief ofPolice /Press/Mayor 

Room Rental 

Golden Gate Club Presidio 

Stipends 

15 Q $150.00 (Non-police instructors) 



Equipment 

4 day rentals 

TV/Video 

Audio/Microphone 

2 wireless mics 

Overhead 

Slide Projector 



$200.00 per day 

175.00 per day 

250.00 per day 

65.00 per day 

75.00 per day 



Police Administrative Costs 

4 Q52/383 total 160 hours 

(rate of $55,575 plus 153% fringe) 

Academy administrative/ coordination, 

POST certification, coordination of instructors 

lesson plan and curriculum 

Evaluation 

Development of evaluation instruments, 
data collection, evaluation analysis, follow-up 
Interviews, Community Mental Health Services 



Facilitation 

Intergroup Clearinghouse services rendered 



total 



total 



total 



total 



total 



total 



total 



total 



total 

Cost per Class 

Total Cost two classes 
39 



1,730.79 

329.91 

5,000.00 

2,600.00 
2,250.00 



3,060.00 



9,028.05 



$3,150.00 

2.000.00 

$89,986.39 

5179,972.78 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 4 -File 01-0355 






Department: 



Item: 



Comment: 



Department of Administrative Services, Real Estate 

Division (RED) 
Department of Aging and Adult Services (DAAS) 

Resolution authorizing an amendment to a lease of real 
property at 1650 Mission Street for the Department of 
Aging and Adult Services. 

As of the writing of this report, the Budget Analyst has not 
received requested information necessary to prepare a 
complete report on the proposed lease. Therefore, the 
Budget Analyst recommends the proposed resolution be 
continued. 



Recommendation: 



Continue the proposed resolution to the Finance Committee 
meeting of March 21, 2001. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 5 - File 01-0203 






Department: 



Item: 



Services to be 
Performed: 



Description: 



Public Transportation Commission (PTC) 
Municipal Railway (MUNI) 

Resolution concurring with the Controller's certification 
that facility security services for the Municipal 
Transportation Agency can continue to be practically 
performed by a private contractor at lower cost than if 
work were performed by City and County employees. 

Comprehensive facility security services for Municipal 
Railway operations 

Charter Section 10.104 provides that the City may 
contract with private firms for services, if the Controller 
certifies, and the Board of Supervisors concurs, that such 
services can in fact be performed by private firms at a 
lower cost than similar work by City and County 
employees. 

Facility security services for Municipal Railway (MUNI) 
operations consist of unarmed stationary and roving 
guards at MUNI facilities, armed guards attending MUNI 
employees involved in the handling of cash, tickets and 
passes, and security analysis and development of plans for 
improving physical security at MUNI facilities. 

The Controller has determined that contracting for facility 
security services for MUNI for FY 2000-2001 would result 
in estimated savings as follows: 



City-Operated Service Costs 
Salaries 
Fringe benefits 
Total 

Contractual Service Cost* 

Estimated Savings 



Lowest 
Salary 
Step 
$1,167,576 
335.902 
$1,503,478 

1.297.519 

$205,959 



Highest 

Salary 

Step 

$1,405,248 

373.264 

$1,778,512 

1.300.845 

$477,667 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

41 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



*According to Mr. Joe Matranga of the Controller's Office, the 
Contractual Service Costs include (a) the current contractor's 
cost of $1,278,290 and (b) the salary and fringe benefits of 0.2 
FTE 8221 Chief, Protective Services position for contract 
monitoring, at the lowest salary step of $19,229, and highest 
salary step of $22,555. 

1. Facility security services for MUNI were first certified 
as required by Charter Section 10.104 in 1983 and have 
been provided by an outside contractor since 1975. 

2. As noted above, the Contractual Service Cost used for 
the purpose of this analysis is based on: (a) the current 
contractor's cost of $1,278,290 to provide facility security 
services, and (b) the salary and fringe benefits of 0.2 FTE 
8221 Chief of Protective Services, ranging from $19,229 at 
the lowest salary step to $22,555 at the highest salary step. 

3. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire with the 
Public Transportation Department's responses is shown in 
the Attachment to this report. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

42 



Attachment 



CHARTER 10.104.15 (PROPOSITION J) QUESTIONNAIRE 



DEPARTMENT: _Public Tiansponaiion._(MUNI)_ 



CONTRACT SERVICES: .Comprehensive Facility Security Services, 
CONTRACT PERIOD: January 8, 2001 thru June 30, 2001 



(1) Who performed the activity/service prior to contracting out? 

Wu not performed. 

(2) Kow many City employees were laid off as a result of contracting out? 

None 

(3) Explain the disposition of employees if they were not laid aft 

N/A 

(4) What percentage of City employees' time is spent of services to be contracted out? 

Approximately 20% of Class 8221 position to monitor contract (.2 FTE) 

(5) How long have (he services been contracted out? Is this Ukcry to be a one-time or an ongoing 
request for contracting out? 

Since 1975; Likely to be on-going. 

(6) What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J certification? Has it been certified for each 
subsequent year? 

1983-84 Fiscal Year. Yes. 

(7) How will the services meet the goals of your MBE/WBE Action Plan? 

Tbey will comply with requirement* of FTA DBE Program. Contractor is DBE. 

(8) Does the proposed contract require that the contractor provide health insurance for its employees? 
Even if not required, are health benefits provided? 

Yes. Yea. 

(9) Does the proposed contractor provide benefits to employees with spouses? If so, are the same 
benefits provided to employees with domestic partners? If not, how does the proposed contractor 
comply with the Domestic Partners ordinance? 

Contractor on HRC approved list for equal benefits requirementv . 



Department Representative: Walter Gibbons_ 

Telephone Number: _(4 15) 554-7150 



43 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 6 - File 01-0351 

Department: 

Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Airport 

Resolution authorizing the Airport Commission to accept 
and expend a grant in the amount of $100,000 from the Bay- 
Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) for 
acquisition of light duty, high mileage Compressed Natural 
Gas (CNG) vans by Airport vehicle operators. 

$100,000 

January 1, 2001 through May 31, 2001 (five months) 

Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) administered by 
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air 
District) 

The Airport's Clean Vehicle Policy was created in February 
of 2000 to encourage transportation operators at the 
Airport to replace a portion of their gasoline- and diesel- 
powered vehicles with clean Compressed Natural Gas 
(CNG) vehicles. The subject funds would be provided by the 
Air District to the Airport to subsidize the incremental cost 
of 25 light duty, high mileage vans over gasoline- and 
diesel-powered vans. The grant would provide funding to 
the Airport, which would disburse funds for partial 
payment of van acquisition costs to the following 
transportation operators at the Airport: (1) Super Shuttle 
to purchase 15 Ford E350 vans for door-to-door service 
between the Airport and Bay Area destinations, and (2) 
Bayporter Express to purchase 10 Dodge Ram vans for 
door-to-door service between the Airport and Bay Area 
destinations. Emissions for the 25 CNG vans must be below 
the level specified by the Air District. Further, the light 
duty, high mileage vehicles must weigh less than 10,000 
pounds and operate at least 75,000 miles annually. 

According to Mr. Roger Hooson of the Airport, the Air 
District contributes up to a maximum of $4,500 per vehicle 
toward the incremental cost of CNG Super Low Emission 
Vehicles over gasoline- and diesel-powered vans. Mr. 
Hooson reports that since the Airport received requests 
from transportation operators for 25 CNG vehicles, and the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

44 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



Airport Matching Funds 
for Vehicle Acquisition: 

Indirect Costs: 



subject grant amount is $100,000, the Air District would 
only contribute $4,000 per vehicle. Attachment I, provided 
by the Airport, shows that the grant provides 
approximately 13.2 percent, or $100,000, of the total cost of 
the 25 CNG vans, which would be $755,000. Super Shuttle 
and Bayporter Express would each pay their share of the 
remaining balance of $655,000, or approximately 86.8 
percent, of the estimated total cost of $755,000 for the 25 
CNG vans. According to Mr. Hooson, the Airport would not 
provide any Airport revenues for the acquisition costs of the 
CNG vans. Further, according to Mr. Hooson, the Airport 
would not be responsible for any maintenance and 
operating costs incurred by the 25 CNG vans. 

The Airport would administer the subject grant, disburse 
funds to the two transportation operators (Super Shuttle 
and Bayporter Express) and monitor the project. The 
Airport would absorb the administrative costs of the grant 
application process and the Airport will also contribute 
some staff time estimated to cost $1,000 in administering 
the funds and monitoring operator compliance through the 
use of Airport revenues. 

Attachment I, provided by the Airport, contains budget 
details for the subject grant funds. 

Mr. Hooson advises that all costs under this grant are 
capital costs, and 100 percent of the funds would be used 
toward the acquisition of the 25 CNG fueled vans made by 
the two transportation operators. The actual amount paid 
by the Air District depends on the number and type of the 
CNG vans ultimately acquired by the two transportation 
operators, and the incremental costs of each vehicle 
purchased, compared to the closest gasoline- or diesel- 
powered model. However, based on the estimated cost data 
provided by the Airport, a total of 25 CNG vans would be 
purchased and the Airport District would pay $4,000 per 
van. 

None 

Indirect costs would be waived in order to maximize use of 
grant funds on direct services. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

45 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Hooson, in May of 2000, the Airport 

notified 67 transportation operators at the Airport, 
including door-to-door shuttle operators, hotel courtesy 
shuttle operators, off-Airport parking operators, Airline 
crew shuttle operators and scheduled bus operators of the 
availability of the subject funds and related funds, 
including the grant contained in Item 8, File 01-0352 of this 
report to the Finance Committee. Two transportation 
operators, Super Shuttle and Bayporter Express, responded 
to the notification with light duty, high mileage vehicles 
which qualify for funding under the subject grant, and both 
transportation operators were selected to receive a portion 
of the subject grant funds. 

2. The two transportation operators mentioned above 
would compile vehicle maintenance histories and provide 
the data to the Airport. The two transportation operators 
would be required to participate in audits that, if deemed 
necessary, would be conducted by the Airport and the Air 
District to verify their compliance with grant guidelines. 

3. Attachment II is the Airport's Grant Application 
Information Form, which includes the Disability Access 

Checklist. 

4. Item 7, File 01-0352, of this report to the Finance 
Committee also pertains to one other Airport grant related 
to the acquisition of 22 CNG vehicles that would provide 
hotel courtesy shuttle service and rental cars. 

5. Since the subject grant period began on January 1, 2001 
the proposed resolution should be amended to provide for 
retroactive authorization. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to provide for retroactive 

authorization, in accord with Comment No. 5 above. 

2. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
46 



Attachment I 



z 

LU 

X 

o 

< 



to 

D 
Z 

u. 

h- 
z 

CD 

u. 
O 

z 
g 

i- 

m 
en 
co 

Q 

Q 
LU 
CO 

o 

o. 
o 

cr 
Q. 



IT) 
CO 

9 
o 

LU 



:.. . 
















*■» 








ifl 
O 

o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


CD 


o 


"ro 


in" 


O* 


m" 


*-< 


CO 


CM 


in 


O 


"fr 


CO 


N 


h- ■ 


00 


«/> 


oo 


■»-• 








C 








2 






o 


o </> 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


ra*2 


o_ 


o_ 


o" 


~ c 


o" 


o" 


o 


O 3 


CD 


-3- 


T— 


h- LL 


co- 


(& 


oo 


<fl 








O 








O 








'E 








a 


in 


o 


m 


> 


«" 




CM 










75 


o 


o 




o 

<-> 


o 


o 




o 


<o 




xi 


a> 


CM* 




3 


CN 


CO 




W 


to 


<& 












l_ 








o 








°- o 








*- « 7; 


o 


o 




c -d .^ 


o 


o 




ra c si 


o 


o 




O u. > 


t" 
oo 






o 
















o 
















SI 


,CJ 






o s 


o 


o 




o 


o 




CD <-> 


o 


o_ 




<fl tfl 


in 


oo 




ra o 


C\ ! 


CM 




m o 


oo 


fe* 




& 








ra 








0) 








CO 


N. 


N 




O 0) 

'■="8 


C 
CO 

> 

a 

in 


c 

CO 

> 

E 




0) o 


C3 


CO 




>5 


HI 


DC 




CO 










P 




CD 




o ra 


o 


o 




>5 


LL 


a 






0) 






* u 


3 


tm 




s s 


CO 


2 Cfl 




<n 2 


CO 

a. 


8.2 
5^ a 




ra a 


Z3 


CO X 


o 


v- O 


CO 


CD UJ 


■- 



o 



S " 



j2 "■= 



a E 



47 



•• " Attachment II 

'*' ' . Page 1 of 2 

le Number: 

(Provided by Clerk of Board of Supervisors) 

Grant Information Form 

(Effective January 2000) 

jrpose: Accompanies proposed Board of Supervisors resolutions authorizing a Department to accept and 
:pend grant funds. 

le following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying resolution: 

Grant Title: 2000 Airport CNG Light Duty, High Mileage Vehicle Project 

Department: Airport Commission 

Contact Person: Roger Hooson Telephone: (650) 821-6511 

Grant Approval Status (check one): 

[x] Approved by funding agency [ ] Not yet approved 

Amount of Grant Funding Approved or Applied for: $100,000 

a. Matching Funds Required: $ None 

\ Source(s) of matching funds (if applicable): 

3. Grant Source Agency: Bay Area Air Quality Management District 
3. Grant Pass-Through Agency (if applicable): 

Proposed Grant Project Summary: 

A/o San Francisco International Airport door-to-door van operators will acquire a total of 25 natural gas vans 
I service at SFO. 

Grant Project Schedule, as allowed in approval documents, or as proposed: 
Start-Date: 1/01 End-Date: 5/01 

). Number of new positions created and funded: None 

I. If new positions are created, explain the disposition of employees once the grant ends? 
N/A 

ia. Amount budgeted for contractual services: None 

b. Will contractual services be put out to bid? N/A 

c If so, will contract services help to further the goals of the department's MBE7WBE 
requirements? N/A 



48 



— Attachment 11 

.. * ' Page 2 ot 2 

' ' v ' ' 

P~ d. Is this likely to be a one-time or ongoing request for contracting out? N/A 

13a. Does the budget include indirect costs? [ ] Yes [x] No 

b1. If. yes, how much? $ 

b2. How was the amount calculated? 

c. If no, why are indirect costs not included? 

[ ] Not allowed by granting agency [x] To maximize use of grant funds on direct services 

[ ] Other (please explain): 

14. Any other significant grant requirements or comments: 



"Disability Access Checklist*** 

15. This Grant is intended for activities at (check all that apply): 

[x] Existing Site(s) [ ] Existing Structure(s) [x] Existing Program(s) or Service(s) 

[ ] Rehabilitated Site(s) [ ] Rehabilitated Structure(s) [ ] New Program(s) or Service(s) 

[ ] New Site(s) [ ] New Structure(s) 

16. The Departmental ADA Coordinator and/or the Mayor's Office on Disability have reviewed the proposal 
and concluded that the project as proposed will be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and 
all other Federal, State and local access laws and regulations and will allow the full inclusion of persons with 
disabilities, or will require unreasonable hardship exceptions, as described in the comments section: 

Comments: 



Departmental or Mayor's Office of Disability Reviewer: Ron Fong 
Date Reviewed: \^<Jn )4-, ljyo \ 

Department Approval: Ko^ Q*/tg^ rVO£\ Ko^j&j^ i4^a.^1a 

(Name) \ (Titfe) J 



a 



(Signatu 







49 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 7 - File 01-0352 

Department: 

Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Airport 

Resolution authorizing the Airport Commission to accept 
and expend a grant in the amount of $99,000 from the Bay 
Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) for 
acquisition or lease of light duty Compressed Natural Gas 
(CNG) automobiles and vans by Airport vehicle operators. 

$99,000 

January 1, 2001 through May 31, 2001 (five months) 

Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) administered by 
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air 
District) 

The Airport's Clean Vehicle Policy was created in February 
of 2000 to encourage transportation operators at the 
Airport to replace a portion of their gasoline- and diesel- 
powered vehicles with clean Compressed Natural Gas 
(CNG) vehicles. The subject funds would be provided by the 
Air District to the Airport to subsidize the incremental cost 
of 22 light duty vehicles over gasoline- and diesel-powered 
vehicles. The grant would provide funding to the Airport, 
which would disburse funds for partial payment of vehicle 
acquisition or lease costs to the following transportation 
operators at the Airport: (1) Environmental Vehicle (EV) 
Rentals to purchase 14 CNG Honda Civics which would be 
used as rental cars by Budget Rent-A-Car at SFO, (2) 
Courtyard by Marriott to lease five Ford E350 vans for 
hotel courtesy shuttle service between the Airport and 
three Marriott hotels, (3) Radisson Hotel to purchase two 
Ford E350 extended vans for hotel courtesy shuttle service 
between the Airport and the Radisson Hotel, and (4) 
Vagabond Inn to purchase one Ford Supreme Sentinel van 
for courtesy shuttle service between the Airport and the 
Vagabond Inn. Emissions for the 22 CNG vehicles must be 
below the level specified by the Air District. Further, the 
light duty vehicles must weigh less than 10,000 lbs. with no 
restriction on mileage permitted per vehicle. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

50 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

According to Mr. Roger Hooson of the Airport, the Air 
District contributes up to a maximum of $4,500 per vehicle 
toward the incremental cost of CNG Super Low Emission 
Vehicles over gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles. 
Attachment I, provided by the Airport, shows that the 
grant provides approximately 17.4 percent, or $99,000, of 
the total cost to acquire or lease the 22 CNG vehicles, which 
would be $567,360. EV Rentals, Courtyard by Marriott, 
Radisson Hotel and Vagabond Inn would each pay their 
share of the remaining balance of $468,360, or 
approximately 82.6 percent, of the estimated total cost of 
$567,360 to acquire or lease the 22 CNG vehicles. According 
to Mr. Hooson, the Airport would not provide any Airport 
revenues for the cost of the CNG vehicles. Further, 
according to Mr. Hooson, the Airport would not be 
responsible for any maintenance and operating costs 
incurred by the 22 CNG vehicles. 

The Airport would administer the subject grant, disburse 
funds to the four transportation operators (EV Rental, 
Courtyard by Marriott, Radisson Hotel, and Vagabond Inn) 
and monitor the project. The Airport would absorb the 
administrative costs of the grant application process and 
the Airport will also contribute some staff time estimated to 
cost $1,000 in administering the funds and monitoring 
operator compliance, through the use of Airport revenues. 

Budget: Attachment I, provided by the Airport, contains budget 

details for the subject grant funds. 

Mr. Hooson advises that all costs under this grant are 
capital costs, and 100 percent of the funds would be used 
toward the acquisition or lease of the 22 CNG fueled 
vehicles including 14 automobiles and 8 vans made by the 
four transportation operators. The actual amount paid by 
the Air District depends on the number and type of the 
CNG vehicles ultimately acquired by the four 
transportation operators, and the incremental costs of each 
vehicle purchased or leased, compared to the closest 
gasoline- or diesel-powered model. However, based on the 
estimated cost data provided by the Airport, a total of 22 
CNG vehicles would be acquired or leased and the Airport 
District would pay up to a maximum of $4,500 per vehicle. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

51 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Airport Matching 
Funds for Vehicle 
Acquisition or Lease: 

Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



None 

Indirect costs would be waived in order to maximize use of 
grant funds on direct services. 

1. According to Mr. Hooson, in May of 2000, the Airport 
notified 67 transportation operators at the Airport, 
including door-to-door shuttle operators, hotel courtesy 
shuttle operators, off-Airport parking operators, Airline 
crew shuttle operators and scheduled bus operators of the 
availability of the subject funds and related funds, 
including the grant contained in Item 7, File 01-0351 of this 
report to the Finance Committee. Four transportation 
operators, namely EV Rental, Courtyard by Marriott, 
Radisson Hotel, and Vagabond Inn, responded to the 
notification with light duty vehicles which qualify for 
funding under the subject grant. All four transportation 
operators were selected to receive a portion of the subject 
grant funds. 

2. The four transportation operators mentioned above 
would compile vehicle maintenance histories and provide 
the data to the Airport. The four transportation operators 
would be required to participate in audits that, if deemed 
necessary, would be conducted by the Airport and the Air 
District to verify their compliance with grant guidelines. 

3. Attachment II is the Airport's Grant Application 
Information Form, which includes the Disability Access 
Checklist. 

4. Item 6, File 01-0351, of this report to the Finance 
Committee also pertains to one other Airport grant related 
to the acquisition of 25 CNG vehicles that would provide 
door-to-door shuttle service between the Airport and 
various passenger destinations. 

5. Since the subject grant period began on January 1, 2001 
the proposed resolution should be amended to provide for 
retroactive authorization. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

52 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 14, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to provide for retroactive 

authorization, in accord with Comment No. 5 above. 

2. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

53 



Attachment I 



Z 

UJ 

5 
o 

t 



(0 

Q 

z 
z> 
u. 

I- 
z 

2 

O 

Li. 

o 

z 
g 

eg 

o: 
»- 

CO 

Q 

Q 
UJ 
CO 

o 

Ql 

O 

Of 



CM 
CO 

o 



LU 



(/J .:-".••. 

o ..-.- 

o- 

1- 


o 

CD 

W* 

00 

tO- 


CD 
00 

cd" 
>- 

tO 


O 

m 
co" 

00 

to 


o 
o 
o_ 

o" 
r«- 

to 


CD 
CO 

in 
oo" 


o 

CD 

co 
c5 

CD 

in 
to 


c- • 
re ■■ • 

O to 

*- — 

3 


O 

o 
o_ 
in 

Tl- 


O 
O 

o_ 

oo" 

€0- 


o 

o 
in 

CM* 

CN 

to 


o 
o 
o_ 

CD* 

to 


o 
o 
in 

rt 
to- 


o 
o 
o 
en" 
en 

OS- 


o 
o : 

!E 
0) ■ . 
> 


O 


"<t 


m 


CN . 




CM 
CM 


"re 
*-^ 
o 

J3 

3 
CO 


CD 

oo" 
to 


CD 
CN 

cd" 

T— 

to 


o 
oo 

CN 

co 

«3- 


o 
o 
o 
m" 
co 
«o- 


co 
co 
in 

co" 
<*> 




Grant 
Funds Per 
Vehicle 


o 
o 
m 

to 


o 
o 
in 

to 


o 
o 
in 

^r 

to 


o 
o 
in 

to 


o 
o 
in 

■*" 
to 




Base Vehicle 

COSt (a,b) 


CD 

o_ 
to- 


CO 

to 


o 
co 

CN 

co 

CO- 


o 
o 
in 

o" 
<n 

SO- 


CD 

00 

o 

Tf" 
Ti- 
to 




j2 

re 

CO 


rn 


in 


OT 


OT 


o 




O Q) 

<5 o 
>S 


o 
x d 
CD < 

o o 
>§ 

O CM 


o 
X "3 
(D < 

>s 

O CN 


c 

CO 

> 

o 
in 
co 

LU 


C 

re 
> 

o 
in 
co 

LU 


cu 
E o 

cu .E 

i— —• 

Q. C 
3 CU 
CO CO 




o 
0) re 


re 
■o 

c 
o 

X 


re 
•o 

c 
o 
X 


"2 
o 
u_ 


o 

LL. 


•a 

o 
u_ 




re q. 
HO 


re 
c 
cu 

a: 
> 

LU 


2 
c 

CU 
Of 

> 

LU 


■o 

co a 
|| 

o ro 
O 2 


c 
o 
w 
in — 

•■5 2 
re o 
DC X 


c 
_c 

■a 

c 
o 

XI 

re 

CD 

re 
> 


re 
o 



u 



£ 



~ a3 



to ,p 



J3 OJ u 

= «J "O 

3 C 0) 

*S .E N 

c: x -5 

— o 2 



O 



54 



Attachment II 
Page 1 ot 2 



File Number: 



(Provided by Clerk of Board of Supervisors) 



Grant Information Form 

(Effective January 2000) 

Purpose: Accompanies proposed Board of Supervisors resolutions authorizing a Department to accept and 
expend grant funds. 

The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying resolution: 

1 . Grant Title: 2000 Airport CNG Light Duty Vehicle Project 

2. Department: Airport Commission 

3. Contact Person: Roger Hooson Telephone: (650) 821-6511 

4. Grant Approval Status (check one): 

[x] Approved by funding agency [ ] Not yet approved 

5. Amount of Grant Funding Approved or Applied for: $99,000 

6a. Matching Funds Required: $ None 
b. Source(s) of matching funds (if applicable): 

7a. Grant Source Agency: Bay Area Air Quality Management District 
b. Grant Pass-Through Agency (if applicable): 

8. Proposed Grant Project Summary: 

A San Francisco International Airport clean air rental car vendor will acquire 14 natural gas Honda Civics for 
rent, while several hotel courtesy shuttle operators will acquire natural gas vans. 

9. Grant Project Schedule, as allowed in approval documents, or as proposed: 

Start-Date: 1/01 End-Date: 5/01 

10. Number of new positions created and funded: None 

11. If new positions are created, explain the disposition of employees once the grant ends? 

N/A 

12a. Amount budgeted for contractual services: None 

b. Will contractual services be put out to bid? N/A 

c. If so, will contract services help to further the goals of the department's MBE/WBE 

requirements? N/A 



55 



" ~ - Attachment II 

"','•.."' ' . Page 2 ot 2 

d. Is this likely to be a one-time or ongoing request for contracting out? N/A 

a. Does the budget include indirect costs? [ ] Yes [x] No 

b1. If yes, how much? $ 

b2. How was the amount calculated? 

c. If no, why are indirect costs not included? 

[ ] Not allowed by granting agency [x] To maximize use of grant funds on direct services 

[ ] Other (please explain): 

. Any other significant grant requirements or comments: 



Disability Access Checklist*** 

. This Grant is intended for activities at (check all that apply): 

Existing Site(s) [ ] Existing Structure(s) [x] Existing Program(s) or Service(s) 

Rehabilitated Site(s) [ ] Rehabilitated Structure(s) [ ] New Program(s) or Service(s) 

New Site(s) [ ] New Structure(s) 

. The Departmental ADA Coordinator and/or the Mayor's Office on Disability have reviewed the proposal 
d concluded that the project as proposed will be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and 
other Federal, State and local access laws and regulations and will allow the full inclusion of persons with 
sabiiities, or will require unreasonable hardship exceptions, as described in the comments section: 

)mments: 



)partmental or Mayor's Office of Disability Reviewer: Ron Fong 
ite Reviewed: Qjc-> \4" 1^° \ 



partment Approval: Q±£2*A £2^USa f&A D12£±&uaA H/kc^a_r-ia./i. 

(Name) | 0"itfe) j 




56 



Memo to Finance Committee 
March 14, 2001 Finance Committee 

Item 8 - File 01-0249 

Department: Department of Elections 

Item: Supplemental appropriation ordinance for $2,538,692 

from the General Fund Reserve to fund salaries, fringe 
benefits, other current expenses, materials and supplies 
and equipment. 

Amount: $2,538,692 

Source of Funds: General Fund Reserve 

Budget: Temporary Salaries $498,572 

Overtime-Miscellaneous 620,564 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits 86,845 

Other Current Expenses 541,570 

Materials and Supplies 316,971 

Equipment Purchase 71,201 
Services of Other Depts. 
Dept. of Telecommunication & Information 

Services (DTIS) 122,416 

DTIS - Citywatch 7,829 

City Attorney 15,000 

Parking and Traffic 47,724 

Purchasing-Reproduction 10,000 

DPW-Building Repairs 75,000 

DPW-Administration 125,000 

Total $2,538,692 

Description: The proposed supplemental appropriation for $2,538,692 

would fund a projected FY 2000-2001 deficit for the 
Department of Elections pertaining to (1) the November 
2000 General Election, (2) the December 2000 Runoff 
Elections for the Board of Supervisors and (3) the 
Department's projected operating costs for the remainder 
of the fiscal year. Mr. Ara Minasian of the Department of 
Administrative Services advises that approximately 
$1,838,692 or 72.4 percent of the requested $2,538,692 
has already been incurred by the Department. The 
projected deficits, by amounts are described as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

57 



Memo to Finance Committee 
March 14, 2001 Finance Committee 



Temporary Salaries 

The Department is requesting an additional $498,572 to 
pay for the increase in Temporary Salaries staff hours 
consisting of: (a) high turnover of Permanent Staff, which 
led to the need to hire more Temporary Staff (projected 
Permanent Staff salary savings of $332,046 are being 
used to offset the total projected $829,618 increase in 
Temporary Staff salaries) for a net deficit of $497,572; 
and (b) a $1,000 increase in Premium Pay for Temporary 
Staff because approximately 12 employees were required 
to work during the night shift due to space limitations 
during the day. Therefore, a total $498,572 is being 
requested. Other reasons for this deficit include: (1) the 
logistical difficulties of dealing with the three-page, 19 
inch by 9.75 inch November of 2000 ballot affected the 
Department's operation at all phases of the election 
process thereby requiring additional Temporary Staff to 
be used to move, sort and tabulate the ballots; (2) the 
recruitment, training and scheduling of additional 
pollworkers by Temporary Staff; and, (3) the current 
reapportionment task, which will extend through 
February of 2002, based on the 2000 U.S. Census in 
which the Congressional Districts will be redrawn, 
requiring the Department to require additional 
Temporary Staff to review the boundaries and modify the 
voters' precinct assignments and locations. The 
Department advises that they will be requesting an as yet 
undetermined amount of additional Temporary Salary 
funds to complete the reapportionment task in the forth 
coming FY 2001-02 budget. 

Mr. Minasian states that $1,050,938 was originally 
budgeted for Temporary Staff in FY 2000-01, $1,786,477 
has been expended to date, and $1,880,556 is projected to 
be expended by the end of FY 2000-01, an increase of 
$829,618, or 78.9 percent more than budgeted. It should 
be noted that these additional Temporary Salary funds 
are not to cover the costs of the additional pollworkers 
located at each polling place, since these pollworker 
expenses are included under Other Current Expenses. An 
estimated $735,539 of the $829,618 in Temporary Salary 
monies over the approved budget has already incurred by 
the Department, prior to obtaining appropriation 
approval by the Board of Supervisors. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

58 



Memo to Finance Committee 
March 14, 2001 Finance Committee 



Overtime-Miscellaneous 

The Department is requesting an additional $620,564 to 
pay for Overtime worked by both Temporary staff 
($580,564) and Permanent staff ($40,000). According to 
Ms. Christiane Hayashi, the City Attorney assigned to 
work as the Community Outreach Manager at the 
Department of Elections, the Overtime expenses for both 
the Permanent and Temporary Staff was primarily due to 
(1) the implementation of the new optical voting 
technology system, which was more complicated than 
anticipated, (2) the failure of the optical voting technology 
system vendor, Election Systems and Software Inc. (ESS), 
to fulfill their contractual obligations (See Comment No. 
7), and (3) the limited space at the Department of 
Elections at City Hall, which necessitated the use of 
various small offices throughout City Hall as well as other 
facilities (i.e., Bill Graham Auditorium, Brooks Hall and 
Pier 39), which made each task far more time-consuming, 
according to Ms. Hayashi. Additionally, Ms. Hayashi 
states that additional Overtime expenditures were 
incurred because of the high Permanent staff turnover. 

A total of $199,436 was budgeted for Overtime for 
Permanent and Temporary employees in FY 2000-01, but, 
according to Mr. Minasian, $820,000 is projected to be 
spent by the end of FY 2000-01 on Overtime for both 
Permanent and Temporary employees, an increase of 
$620,564, or over 311 percent more than budgeted. Mr. 
Minasian advises that there is no budgeted Overtime for 
either Permanent or Temporary staff for the remainder of 
FY 2000-01. The expenditure of additional Overtime 
funds of $620,564 has already been incurred by the 
Department, prior to obtaining appropriation approval 
from the Board of Supervisors. 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits 

The Department is requesting an additional $86,845 to 
pay for the Mandatory Fringe Benefits associated with 
the projected deficits in Temporary Salary and Overtime- 
Miscellaneous costs identified above. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

59 



Memo to Finance Committee 
March 14, 2001 Finance Committee 



Other Current Expenses 

The Department is requesting an additional $541,570 to 
offset the costs for (1) the longer 3-page ballots and Voter 
Information Pamphlets, (2) pollworker fees, (3) rental of 
polling locations, (4) increased postage and delivery costs, 
(5) additional printing expenses, (6) community outreach 
and advertising, (7) translation services, (8) computer 
programming assistance, (9) the rental of vehicles, 
property and equipment and (10) the service fee payment 
to ESS. Some of the more significant cost overruns are 
discussed below. 

The Department had estimated ballot costs of $512,000 
based on a two-page ballot for the November, 2000 
election, but the large number of initiatives and 
candidates required a three-page ballot, which cost 
$738,853, $226,853 or 44.3 percent more than budgeted. 
According to Ms. Hayashi, the Department did not know 
the length of the ballot until after the FY 2000-01 budget 
was approved, because the due date filing ballot measures 
was August 9, 2000 and the due date for the candidate 
filings was August 16, 2000. Therefore, Ms. Hayashi 
advises that it was impossible to know the length of the 
ballot until September of 2000. Mr. Minasian notes that 
the Department budgeted $306,400 for the ballots for the 
December runoff election, but only spent $205,244, a 
savings of $101,156, which the Department used to 
partially offset the increased cost from the November 
election. Therefore, the total additional costs for the 
ballots was $125,697 ($226,853 less $101,156). 

In addition, the Department estimated costs of $485,000 
for the Voter Information Pamphlet based on a 175-page 
historical average, but the actual November Pamphlet 
was 300 pages, which cost $654,093, including all of the 
additional translation and printing costs, an increase of 
$169,093, or 34.9 percent. Mr. Minasian advises that the 
Voter Information Pamphlet for December was estimated 
to cost $131,500, but only cost $95,561, a savings of 
$35,939, which the Department again used to partially 
offset the increased costs of the November Voter 
Information Pamphlet. Therefore, the total deficit for the 
Voter Information Pamphlet was $133,154 ($169,093 less 
$35,939). 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

60 



Memo to Finance Committee 
March 14, 2001 Finance Committee 



According to Ms. Hayashi, California State Election Code 
Section 12304 requires that at least 3 poll workers, 
including one Inspector, be placed at each polling location. 
Ms. Hayashi states that there are 637 polling places in 
San Francisco. Therefore, the Department needed to hire 
at least 1,911 poll workers. Ms. Hayashi states that the 
Department hired approximately 2,792 or approximately 
4.4 poll workers per polling site for the November election 
and approximately 2,167 or 3.4 poll workers per polling 
site for the December election. According to Ms. Hayashi, 
the Department hired these additional poll workers to 
ensure that there were sufficient poll workers to assist 
voters in using the new optical voting technology system. 
Ms. Hayashi states that the daily pay rate for the poll 
worker is $82 and $105 for the Inspectors. The total cost 
for the poll workers, including training and related fees 
was approximately $416,000 in November and $230,000 
in December, for a total cost of approximately $646,000 
for both elections. 

The Department also significantly underestimated the 
costs of postage at $386,500. The actual postage cost was 
$808,500, $422,000 or 109.2 percent more than the 
amount budgeted for the Voter Information Pamphlets 
and the absentee ballots for both the November and 
December elections. 

In addition to the costs of renting the 637 polling sites at 
an estimated cost of $89,000 for the two elections, the 
Department budgeted a total of $50,000 for the rental of 
faculties, equipment and vehicles for FY 2000-01, the 
same amount budgeted in FY 1999-2000. However, the 
Department actually projects spending $59,322 for the 
rental of facilities, $80,904 for rental of equipment 
(including a total of $23,636 for portable toilets at various 
polling sites) and $101,556 for the rental of vehicles, for a 
total rental cost of $241,782, which is $191,782 or 383.6 
percent more than the $50,000 the Department budgeted. 
The Department of Elections did not coordinate the rental 
of these numerous vehicles through the City Purchaser's 
Office, also resulting in higher costs than would otherwise 
be necessary. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

61 



Memo to Finance Committee 
March 14, 2001 Finance Committee 



Also included in these Other Current Expenses is an 
additional $251,000 service fee payment to Election 
Systems and Software, Inc. (ESS), the optical scanning 
technology equipment vendor (See Comment No. 7). 

Mr. Minasian states that in addition to the total budgeted 
costs of $2,469,669 for Other Current Expenses, an 
additional $1,173,791, or 47.5 percent more than 
budgeted is projected to be expended by the end of FY 
2000-2001, for a total of $3,643,461. The additional 
$1,173,791 includes (1) $125,697 for the ballots, (2) 
$133,154 for the Voter Information Pamphlet, (3) 
approximately $75,500 for the additional poll workers, (4) 
$422,000 for postage, (5) $191,782 for the rental of 
facilities, equipment and vehicles and (6) $225,658 for 
various miscellaneous increases. Mr. Minasian advises 
that the additional $1,173,791 in Other Current Expenses 
will be covered by the proposed supplemental 
appropriation in the requested amount of $541,570, as 
well as with $540,556 in unexpended capital project 
carry-forward funds remaining from the supplemental 
appropriation in FY 1999-2000 and $91,665 in 
interdepartmental recovery funds 1 (See Comment No. 4). 

Materials and Supplies 

The Department is requesting an additional $316,971 for 
Materials and Supplies to primarily pay for the costs of 
4,600 new voting booths. According to Ms. Hayashi, the 
Department had budgeted $375,000 for the cost of these 
new voting booths based on a verbal agreement between 
the booth vendor, Election Data Corporation, and a 
previous Department of Election Division Manager that 
the vendor would honor a trade-in. However, according to 
Ms. Hayashi, the vendor did not honor the voting booth 
trade-in, which meant that the Department under- 
budgeted for the costs of the voting booths by 
approximately $230,000, since the total cost of the voting 
booths was $605,000 ($375,000 plus $230,000). Ms. 
Hayashi further states that since the trade-in agreement 
was only a verbal agreement between the vendor and a 
prior Department employee, and documentation is not 



1 Mr. Minasian advises that the Department will receive a total of $91,665 of workorder 
funds from the Retirement Board and the Health Services Board to conduct their own 
Departmental elections for each of these City Boards. 

BOARD OFSUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

62 



Memo to Finance Committee 
March 14, 2001 Finance Committee 



available, the Department is not pursuing recovery of 
these additional costs. The new voting booths have an 
estimated life-span of 15 years. Mr. Minasian advises that 
that the remaining $86,971 (the $316,971 request less 
$230,000 for the voting booths) for Materials and Supplies 
is primarily for the increased costs for the envelopes and 
mailing of the larger than anticipated absentee and 
provisional ballots. 

Equipment Purchase 

The Department is requesting an additional $71,201 for 
(1) $6,201 in additional computer equipment costs and (2) 
$65,000 in net interest costs for the optical voter machine 
lease. It should be noted that a total of $3,249,739 was 
budgeted for equipment purchases, primarily for the new 
optical voting technology system for the Department in 
FY 2000-01. 

Dept. of Telecommunication and Information Services 
(DTIS) 

The Department is requesting an additional $122,416 to 
pay the Department of Telecommunication and 
Information Services (DTIS) for the staff and technical 
assistance during the implementation of the optical scan 
voting system and for routine support of the Department 
of Elections network and computer equipment needs. Ms. 
Hayashi advises that the Department needed additional 
DTIS support because they were unable to hire an in- 
house information systems person, whom they had hoped 
to hire earlier, and therefore they underbudgeted the 
amount they needed for DTIS. Ms. Hayashi advises that 
with the in-house information systems staff which have 
now been hired, the DTIS assistance should be reduced in 
the future. The expenditure of this $122,416 for 
additional DTIS services has already been incurred by the 
Department, prior to obtaining appropriation approval 
from the Board of Supervisors. 

DTIS-Citvwatch 

The Department is requesting an additional $7,829 to pay 
for the crew, equipment and videotape provided by 
Citywatch for the production and post-production of the 
Department's Public Service Announcement and 
informational videos created between August 3, 2000 and 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

63 



Memo to Finance Committee 
March 14, 2001 Finance Committee 

October 16, 2000. The expenditure of this $7,829 for these 
Public Service Announcements and informational videos 
has already been incurred by the Department of 
Elections, prior to obtaining appropriation approval from 
the Board of Supervisors. 

City Attorney 

The Department is requesting an additional $15,000 to 
pay for Ms. Hayashi's salary and fringe benefits for the 
remainder of the FY 2000-01. According to Ms. Hayashi, 
she was assigned to duties including contract 
management and Community Outreach Manager for the 
Department of Elections beginning in February of 2000. 
The Department originally budgeted $60,000 as a 
workorder for the City Attorney for FY 2000-01. If the 
proposed supplemental appropriation of $15,000 is 
approved, a total of $75,000 would be appropriated for 
City Attorney services this fiscal year. 

According to Ms. Martie Moore from the City Attorney's 
Office, Ms. Hayashi's annual salary and fringe benefits 
total $137,580 and Ms. Hayashi is assigned full-time to 
the Department of Elections. Ms. Moore advises that she 
has billed the Department $68,790 for Ms. Hayashi's 
services from July 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000, 
and she will bill the Department of Elections an 
additional $68,790 for the second half of FY 2000-01, for a 
total of $137,580. Therefore, the proposed supplemental 
appropriation for the subject request for Ms. Hayashi's 
salary and benefits in the amount of $15,000 would not be 
sufficient to cover the additional costs of $68,790 for Ms. 
Hayashi, given the fact that the Department already owes 
the City Attorney's Office an additional $8,790 ($68,790 
billed less $60,000 originally budgeted) for the first half of 
FY 2000-01. Therefore, the total projected amount owed 
to the City Attorney is $77,580 ($137,580 less $60,000 
budgeted). 

To pay for the additional City Attorney expense of 
$77,580, Mr. Minasian states that, the Department will 
use a $20,000 surplus in Mail Servicing, together with the 
proposed supplemental appropriation for $15,000. Mr. 
Minasian also indicates that the Department will 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

64 



Memo to Finance Committee 
March 14, 2001 Finance Committee 



negotiate with the City Attorney for the remainder of the 
balance of $42,580. 

Parking and Traffic 

The Department is requesting an additional $47,724 to 
pay the Department of Parking and Traffic, for the 
November and December elections, in which the 
Department of Elections arranged to have Parking 
Control Officers (PCOs) pick up the optical scan system 
memory packs 2 from each of the polling places 
immediately after the polls closed and transport them to 
City Hall. The Budget Analyst questions the expenditure 
of these funds for DPTs PCOs to transport the optical 
scan system memory packs, instead of using some of the 
Department of Elections pollworkers from each site, 
especially since the Department of Elections had already 
hired additional pollworkers to staff each election site and 
rented numerous vehicles. According to Mr. Phillip Paris, 
the Acting Director of Elections, the pollworkers did not 
deliver the memory packs to City Hall because most did 
not have their own vehicles and the Election Inspector 
had to wait until the ballots were picked up by the 
Department of Public Works, which would have caused 
significant delays. The expenditure of this $47,724 has 
already been incurred by the Department prior to 
obtaining appropriation approval from the Board of 
Supervisors. 

Purchasing - Reproduction 

The Department is requesting an additional $10,000 to 
pay the Reproduction Division of the Purchasing 
Department for the costs of poll worker training manuals 
and voter information packets. The expenditure of this 
$10,000' has already been incurred prior to obtaining 
appropriation approval from the Board of Supervisors. 
According to Mr. Minasian, additional expenditures 
beyond this requested $10,000 will not be workordered to 
Reproduction Services for the remainder of the fiscal year. 



2 The optical scan system memory packs record the votes as the baUots are scanned into the 
Eagle, the optical scan voting machine that reads the ballots. The memory packs can be 
removed from the Eagle and taken to City Hall where the voting results are downloaded. 
The votes are subsequently certified. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

65 



Memo to Finance Committee 
March 14, 2001 Finance Committee 

Department of Public Works - Building Repairs 
The Department is requesting an additional $75,000 to 
pay the Building Repair Division of the Department of 
Public Works (DPW) for the costs of making modifications 
and repairs to the Department of Elections office and 
public spaces, that were used temporarily for the 
November and December elections of 2000 (See Comment 
No. 5). 

Department of Public Works - Administration 
The Department is requesting an additional $125,000 to 
pay DPW's Administration Division because the 
November, 2000 three-page ballots were too heavy for the 
poll workers to transport. As a result, the Department of 
Elections arranged for DPW staff to both deliver the 
November ballots to each precinct on election morning 
and to pick them up that evening. For the one-page 
December election, the poll workers transported the 
ballots themselves (See Comment No. 6). 

Comments: 1. Attachment 1, provided by Ms. Hayashi, explains some 

of the factors associated with the new voting technology 
that was implemented for the November and December 
2000 elections, which partially resulted in the projected 
deficit necessitating this proposed supplemental 
appropriation request. In addition, Mr. Paris, who was 
hired in November of 2000, advises that a high turnover 
in the Department's Division Manager staff also resulted 
in a lack of adequate management and supervision of 
Temporary personnel, Overtime and some of the Other 
Current Expenses during this period. According to Mr. 
Minasian, there are four Permanent Division Manager 
positions within the Department including (1) one 
Division Manager position which has been vacant for over 
one year, (2) one Division Manager position which has 
remained vacant since the Spring of 2000, (3) one Division 
Manager position which became vacant in October of 
2000, and (4) one Division Manager position which 
became vacant in February of 2001. As a result, there are 
no Division Manager positions currently filled in the 
Department. In addition, the Director of the Department 
is currently on maternity leave. Mr. Minasian advises 
that these positions will remain vacant for the rest of this 
fiscal year, in order to provide Permanent Salary Savings 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

66 



Memo to Finance Committee 
March 14, 2001 Finance Committee 

of $332,046 to offset a portion of the Temporary Salary 
funds requested in the subject supplemental 
appropriation. 

2. The Department of Elections had an original total FY 
1999-2000 budget of $4,455,403, to cover their annual 
operating expenses, including the costs of the November 
of 1999 election and the March of 2000 election. Exactly 
one year ago, in March of 2000, the Board of Supervisors 
approved a General Fund supplemental appropriation for 
$2,290,097, primarily to cover the one-time costs of (1) an 
unplanned third election in FY 1999-2000 for the 
December of 1999 Mayoral and District Attorney run-off 
election ($1,482,730), (2) purging the voter rolls 
($210,309), (3) upgrading the Department's information 
and voter registration scanning systems ($497,058) and 
(4) providing funding for the necessary project 
management and critical technical resources to ensure 
that the new optical scan vote count system was 
implemented successfully ($100,000). The Department 
thus received a total budget of $6,745,500 in FY 1999- 
2000. 

For FY 2000-2001, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
budget of $10,051,234 for the Department, which was 
$5,595,831, or approximately 126 percent more than the 
FY 1999-2000 original budget to cover the Department's 
annual operating and capital expenses, including the 
anticipated costs of a November of 2000 General Election 
and a December of 2000 runoff election. The primary FY 
2000-2001 budgetary increases of $5,595,831 included (1) 
$3,249,739 for the purchase of a new optical scan vote 
count system, (2) $1,003,416 for a new Election Services 
Project, which was a special enhanced project team 
intended to ensure the successful implementation of the 
new optical scan vote count system, and (3) $969,013 for 
additional expenditures related to the ballots for the new 
optical scan vote count system. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation request for an 
additional $2,538,692 would result in a total budget 
appropriation of $12,589,926 for the Department of 
Elections in FY 2000-01, or $5,844,426, or 86.6 percent 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

67 



Memo to Finance Committee 
March 14, 2001 Finance Committee 

more than the FY 1999-2000 total revised budget of 
$6,745,500. 

3. The Budget Analyst notes that of the requested 
supplemental appropriation of $2,538,692, approximately 
$1,838,692 has already been expended, without obtaining 
prior appropriation approval from the Board of 
Supervisors. According to Mr. Paris, the former Director 
of Elections, Patricia Fado, authorized these much higher 
than anticipated expenditures. Ms. Taylor Emerson of the 
Mayor's Office advises that the former Director of the 
Department of Elections verbally notified the Mayor's 
Office prior to the November of 2000 election that the 
Department of Elections would not have sufficient funds 
in their budget to conduct the November and December 
2000 elections, and would require a supplemental 
appropriation during FY 2000-01 to cover these additional 
expenses. However, the Budget Analyst was not provided 
with such notification for the Board of Supervisors. 
Attachment 2, provided by Mr. Paris identifies plans that 
the Department has to contain costs in the future, 
including one-time only expenditures that occurred 
during FY 2000-2001 that are not expected to occur in 
subsequent years. 

4. The Budget Analyst's review of the Controller's records 
found that the Department shifted $900,000 from Capital 
Expenses to cover the additional Other Current Expenses 
that the Department was incurring. The Department had 
budgeted $3,241,739 for Capital Expenses for the 
purchase of the optical scan voting technology system and 
to date, has authorized payments of $2,400,000 for this 
system through a third party loan arrangement, leaving a 
remaining balance of approximately $800,000 to be paid, 
assuming interest earnings on the original loan amount. 
However, the Department is currently negotiating with 
the optical scan voting technology system vendor, ESS, to 
determine whether the City should continue to purchase 
this system or apply the previous payments to a lease of 
this equipment, such that the $800,000 additional 
purchase payments might not be necessary and to resolve 
outstanding contract issues (See Comment No. 7). Ms. 
Hayashi advises that the amount that will be due to ESS 
may change as a result of these negotiations. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

68 



Memo to Finance Committee 
March 14, 2001 Finance Committee 



The Budget Analyst therefore recommends that the 
Department reserve $800,000 from the subject 
supplemental appropriation request, pending the outcome 
of these contract negotiations. The $800,000 reserve 
would include $541,570 from Other Current Expenses, 
$71,201 from Equipment Purchase and $187,229 from 
Materials and Supplies. In addition, the Budget Analyst 
recommends that the Board of Supervisors reserve an 
additional $251,000 from the Department's already 
appropriated funds for Other Current Expenses for the 
Election Systems and Software, Inc. service fee payment, 
pending the outcome of the contract negotiations and 
potential modifications (See Comment No. 7). 

5. According to the DPW, a total of $73,195, not $75,000 
was billed to the Department of Elections for 
modifications and repairs. Therefore, the subject 
supplemental appropriation should be reduced by $1,805. 

6. The Department has requested $125,000 to pay DPW 
for DPWs staff overtime costs incurred to transport the 
ballots from each precinct before and after the election. 
However, the Budget Analyst notes that these same 
overtime costs are included in the DPWs request for 
release of $504,225 of overtime costs, that is currently 
pending before the Finance Committee (File 01-0268), 
scheduled to be heard on March 21, 2001 by the Finance 
Committee. Therefore, the requested $125,000 should be 
deleted from the subject supplemental appropriation. 

7. The Department selected Election Systems and 
Software, Inc. (ESS) in March of 1999 following a RFP 
issued by the Department in January of 1998, to supply 
the Department with optical voting machines. Ms. 
Hayashi notes that the Department is currently in 
negotiations with ESS since the Department believes that 
ESS failed to provide support services during the 
November and December of 2000 elections, as per the 
service contract agreement between the City and ESS. 
Ms. Hayashi advises that as of the writing of this report, 
it is unclear if some of the City's costs, such as DPWs 
Overtime costs for transporting the ballots, are 
reimbursable from the contractor. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

69 



Memo to Finance Committee 
March 14, 2001 Finance Committee 



If the contractor is found to have failed to meet the 
requirements of the contract and monies are due to the 
City from ESS, according to Mr. Minasian, such funds 
from ESS would be remitted to the General Fund or 
extended as a credit against future lease or purchase 
payments. Additionally, Ms. Hayashi notes that the 
Department of Elections will attempt to enter into 
contract renegotiations or modifications to preserve the 
Department's flexibility in the future, when it plans to 
upgrade to touch-screen voting. Although the Department 
had proposed to purchase the optical voting technology 
system from ESS, as previously noted, the Department is 
currently analyzing the option of applying the previous 
purchase payments as lease payments for this equipment, 
such that the need for additional payments and the 
amount of such payments to ESS are not currently 
known. 

Ms. Hayashi cannot estimate the costs or savings at this 
time that the City may realize from any contract 
modification because these negotiations are presently in 
progress. Therefore, as noted in Comment No. 4 above, 
the Budget Analyst recommends that (1) the additional 
$800,000 of Capital funds that were to be expended on the 
ESS purchase should be reserved, (2) the $251,000 service 
fee payment to ESS that has previously been 
appropriated be reserved and (3) the Department report 
back to the Finance Committee the results of these 
negotiations with ESS so that the Committee and the full 
Board of Supervisors can be aware of any technological 
and contract changes as well as fiscal impacts that may 
occur due to such negotiations. 

8. Mr. Minasian advises that the Department 
received a total of $24,627 from numerous individuals and 
organizations to offset the costs of the Department of 
Elections conducting the recount from the District 7 
Board of Supervisors Runoff Election in December. Ms. 
Hayashi advises that all of the Department's costs of the 
recount, which were identified by the California Secretary 
of State to be eligible for reimbursement, were offset with 
the $24,627 of revenues received. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

70 



Memo to Finance Committee 
March 14, 2001 Finance Committee 



9. According to Ms. Hayashi, the City permits 
individuals to submit paid arguments on ballot measures 
to be printed in the Voter Information Pamphlet. 
Currently, the Department charges a $200 fee plus $2 a 
word for these paid arguments. Ms. Minasian reports that 
these fees generated total revenues of $113,000, which 
does not fully cover the actual costs of including the paid 
arguments in the Pamphlet. The Department reports that 
the Voter Information Pamphlet for the November 
election cost $654,093. Ms. Hayashi advises that to more 
fully cover the costs of including these arguments in the 
November Pamphlet, the Department would have had to 
charge a $500 fee plus $5 a word. However, the 
Department must receive Board of Supervisors approval 
before the Department can change the fees it charges for 
paid arguments. Ms. Hayashi notes that San Francisco is 
the only local California jurisdiction which includes paid 
arguments in its Voter Information Pamphlets. As of the 
writing of this report, Ms. Hayashi has not submitted 
legislation to the Board of Supervisors to change these 
fees. 

10. Revenues for the Department from the paid, ballot 
arguments ($71,000) and the candidate fees ($85,000) 
were budgeted at $156,000 for FY 2000-01. Actual 
revenues indicate that the paid ballot arguments 
generated $113,000 and candidate fees generated $53,606 
for a total of $166,606 from these sources, or 
approximately $10,606 more than the $156,000 budgeted 
for Fiscal Year 2000-2001. 

11. In summary, the proposed supplemental 
appropriation for $2,538,692 would fund a projected 
deficit in FY 2000-2001, including $1,838,692 in costs 
incurred by the Department of Elections, prior to 
obtaining appropriation approval from the Board of 
Supervisors. Such costs are related to the November and 
December 2000 elections, as well as projected operating 
costs for the remainder of the fiscal year. For example, the 
Department of Elections overspent (1) Temporary 
Salaries by $829,618 or 78.9 percent more than budgeted, 
(2) Overtime-Miscellaneous by $620,564 or over 311 
percent more than budgeted, (3) Mandatory Fringe 
Benefits by $86,845 to reflect the additional Temporary 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

71 



Memo to Finance Committee 
March 14, 2001 Finance Committee 



Salary and Overtime-Miscellaneous expenditures, (4) 
Other Current Expenses by $1,173,791 or 47.5 percent 
more than budgeted, (5) Materials and Supplies by 
$316,971, (6) Equipment Purchases by $71,201, and the 
Services of Other City Departments by an additional 
$402,969, including the services of DTIS, City Attorney, 
Parking and Traffic, Reproduction and DPW. The new- 
optical scanning voting technology system, as outlined in 
Attachment 1, partially resulted in the proposed 
increased election costs. In addition, as noted in Comment 
No. 1 above, a lack of adequate management and 
supervision of (a) Temporary personnel, (b) Overtime and 
(c) some of the Other Current Expenses contributed to the 
need for the proposed $2,538,692 supplemental 
appropriation request. 

In FY 1999-2000, the Department of Elections had a total 
revised budget of $6,745,500 (including $2,290,097 for a 
supplemental appropriation in March of 2000) to cover 
the additional cost of three elections. For FY 2000-2001, 
the Board of Supervisors approved a budget of 
$10,051,234. The proposed supplemental appropriation 
request for an additional $2,538,692 would result in a 
total budget of $12,589,926 for the Department in FY 
2000-2001, which is $5,844,426 or 86.6 percent more than 
the FY 1999-2000 total revised budget of $6,745,500. 
Attachment 2 identifies some cost containment plans 
prepared by the Department for the future. 

The City Attorney is currently in negotiations with 
Elections Systems and Software, Inc. (ESS) pertaining to 
a potential default of some service contract provisions in 
the agreement between the City and ESS. Additionally, 
the Department of Elections will attempt to enter into 
contract renegotiations or modifications to potentially 
change the current purchase agreement into a lease 
arrangement or other more flexible arrangements. 

The Budget Analyst therefore recommends that (1) 
$1,838,692 of the proposed supplemental be made 
retroactive since these costs have already been incurred 
by the Department, without obtaining prior approval from 
the Board of Supervisors, (2) the proposed supplemental 
be reduced by $126,805 for DPW expenses, (3) an 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

72 



Memo to Finance Committee 
March 14, 2001 Finance Committee 

additional $800,000 of Capital funds that were to be paid 
to ESS for the purchase of optical voting technology- 
system be reserved, (4) the $251,000 service fee payment 
to ESS, which has previously been appropriated be 
reserved and (5) the Department report back to the 
Finance Committee the results of the negotiations with 
ESS so that the Committee is advised of any technological 
and contract changes as well as fiscal impacts that result 
from the negotiations. 

Recommendations: 1. Reduce this proposed supplemental appropriation by 
$126,805 from $2,538,692 to $2,411,887 as shown in 
the following table: 



Temporary Salaries 
Overtime-Miscellaneous 
Mandatory Fringe Benefits 
Other Current Expenses 
Materials and Supplies 
Equipment Purchase 
Services of Other Departments 
DTIS 

DTIS - Citywatch 
City Attorney 
Parking and Traffic 
Purchasing-Reproduction 
DPW-Building Repairs 
DPW- Administration 
Total 







Budget 




Budget Analyst's 


Analyst 


Amount 


Recommended 


Recommended 


Requested 


Amount 


Reductions 


$498,572 


$498,572 


$0 


620,564 


620,564 





86,845 


86,845 





541,570 


541,570 





316,971 


316,971 





71,201 


71,201 





122,416 


122,416 





7,829 


7,829 





15,000 


15,000 





47,724 


47,724 





10,000 


10,000 





75,000 


73,195 


1,805* 


125.000 





125.000** 


$2,538,692 


$2,411,887 


$126,805 



' See Comment No. 5. 
k * See Comment No. 6. 



2. Reserve a total of $800,000, including $541,570 from 
Other Current Expenses, $187,229 from Materials and 
Supplies and $71,201 from Equipment Purchase, in 
accordance with Comment Nos. 4 and 7 above. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

73 



Memo to Finance Committee 
March 14, 2001 Finance Committee 



3. Amend the proposed ordinance to reserve an 
additional $251,000 of previously appropriated FY 
2000-2001 funds for the Department in accordance 
with Comment Nos. 4 and 7 above. 

4. Amend the proposed ordinance to provide for 
retroactive approval of the subject $2,538,692 
supplemental appropriation since the Department has 
already expended or incurred approximately 
$1,838,692 of these expenses, without first obtaining 
appropriation approval from the Board of Supervisors. 

5. Request the Department of Elections to report back 
to the Finance Committee as to the results of the 
contract renegotiations with Elections Systems and 
Software, Inc. pertaining to any technological, contract 
and fiscal impacts regarding this contract, in 
accordance with Comments No. 4 and 7 above. 



6. Approval of the proposed ordinance, as amended, is 
a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 




farvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Gonzalez 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Steve Kawa 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

74 



Mar-m-ui u£:tipm From-dapt of elactions 



+4155547829 



V. 



JEPAJITMENT OF ELECTIONS 
Zity and County of San Francisco 



TO: 




Maureen Singleton 
Budget Analysts Office 

FROM: Christiane Hayashi 

Department of Elections 

RE: Supplemental Appropriation Request 

DATE: February 28, 2001 



T-559 P. 003/003 F-853 
Attachment 1 

Phillip Sanchez parjs 

Acting Director of Elections 



The need for a supplemental appropriation for the Department of Elections has arisen due to 
several factors associated with implementing a new voting technology in the Presidential election 
of November 7, 2000. 

The new system introduced new variables, so that the logistical requirements for a successful 
election were very complex and work intensive to develop the first time. For example, poll workers 
had been accustomed to bring ballots back to City Hall at the end of the night With the new 
system it was necessary to plan and execute pick-up routes throughout the City to pick up the 
large ballot boxes and the heavy ballots. 

The new system also depended on poll worker recruitment and training to ensure sufficient poll 
workers to assist voters. Developing materials for training, training trainers, recruiting and 
scheduling several thousand poll workers for planned training sessions and distributing the larger 
precinct supplies was a critical task that required a relatively high level of staffing. 

The ballot's size contributed substantially to labor costs. Absentee ballots were more time 
consuming to assemble for mailing, and took more time to be prepared for processing through the 
central counting machines. An advantage of the new system also increased costs: new paper 
ballots made it possible to correct ballots that clearly demonstrated voter intent but that could not 
be read by the optical scanner. A significant amount of labor went into remaking approximately 
20,000 ballot cards to be sure that the votes were counted. 

Lack of space for processing ballots also increased costs. Using the small conference rooms of 
the City Hall basement to store heavily loaded mail carts made the extensive ballot sorting needed 
for the canvass of the election immensely difficult The far-flung locations of the several 
operational centers of the department and the size of the ballots and voting machines to be 
transported increased automobile rental costs. 

The popularity of the election also contributed to cost overruns. The Department processed 18 
local measures and over 120 local candidates for the November election. The number of 
candidates and issues on the ballot increased the size of the Voter Information Pamphlet which in 
turn increased translation, printing and mailing costs. An unprecedented number of paid ballot 
arguments constituted 40% of a 300 page Voter Information Pamphlet The number of issues and 
candidates on the ballot also increased the size of the ballot from two cards to three cards, 
substantially increasing printing and handling costs. 

Some of the cost overruns were attributable to contract issues with the vendor of the voting 
system. The Department is currently working to recover additional costs attributable to the • 
contractor. 



75 




.Mar-OT-01 02:41pm From-dspt of elections +4155547828 T-558 P. 002/003 F-B53 

Department of Elections /w &x^J¥ \A Phillip s. Paris, Ph.d. 

City and County of San Francisco XrvZS&fc&lai'/ A a ' n * Bi rccl or 

Attachment 2 
BUDGETARY JUSTIFICATION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST 

Future Cost Saving Plans 

1. Ballot Processing: Currently, we are searching for a large warehouse facility in 
order to prepare, deliver, and retrieve ballots. By consolidating this process, 
including absentee and provisional ballots, temporary employee costs in terms 
of number needed and overtime will be reduced substantially. 

2. Voting machine delivery and pickup: We are renegotiating with the vendor to 
comply with the terms of the initial contract regarding primary responsibility 
for the delivery and pickup of the Eagle and blue bins. 

3. Precinct Poll setup and closeouu We intend to do extensive tra inin g of poll 
workers in the setting up and closing of precinct polling sites. By reducing the 
possibilities of inadequate processing at the precinct sites, we also shall reduce 
transportation and temporary worker needs. 

4. Consolidation of precinct voting sites; With Board approval, we plan to recom- 
mend an additional number of consolidated precinct polling sites. By reducing 
the number of single sites, we also shall be able to reduce transportation costs. 

5. Expansion of early voting sites: With Board approval, we plan to recommend 
an extension of the time for early voting, as well as, provision of a number of 
public sites in addition to City Hall. 

A series of one-time costs are important to list here. 

6. No additional acquisition costs for polling booths. 

7. No additional training needs to utilization of optical scan machine. 

8. No additional need for a special projects team to develop and conduct election. 

9. No additional need for DTIS special training. 
10.No additional need for DPW delivery and pickup services. 

3-7-01 



1 Dr. Carlton B. Coodlttt Plac* - Room 43, San Frandico, CM 94102-4634 
Voice (415) 554-4575; Fax. (415) 554-7544; Absentee Fax (415) 554-4372; TDD (415) 554-4386 



76 




City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Agenda 
Finance Committee 

Members: Supervisors Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin and Matt Gonzalez 
Clerk: Gail Johnson 



City Hall 
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689 



Wednesday, March 21, 2001 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Note: Each item on the Consent or Regular agenda may include the following documents: 

1) Legislation 

2) Budget Analyst report 

3) Legislative Analyst report 

4) Department or Agency cover letter and/or report 

5) Public correspondence 

These items will be available for review at City Hall, Room 244, Reception Desk. 



Each member of the public will be allotted the same maximum number of minutes to speak as set by 
the Chair at the beginning of each item, excluding City representatives. 



AGENDA CHANGES 



REGULAR AGENDA 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
MAR f 6 2001 / 

SAN FRANCISCO 
p UBLlC LIBRARY 



010370 [Appropriation, Aging and Adult Services] 
Supervisor Daly 

Ordinance appropriating $1,000,000 for senior program needs and $1,000,000 for infrastructure needs 
identified by Aging and Adult Services needs assessment survey, and amend the Annual Salary 
Ordinance to create two (2) positions for fiscal year 2000-0 1 . 

(Fiscal impact.) 

2/26/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

3/7/01, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speaker: Supervisor Daly. Continued to 3/21/01. 



010371 [Public Employment) 
Supervisor Daly 

Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 181-00 (Annual Salary Ordinance, 2000/01) reflecting the 
creation of two new positions in Aging and Adult Services. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

2/26/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

3/7/01, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee Speaker: Supervisor Daly Continued to 3/21/01. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Primed at 11:28 AM on i/lSA)l 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Agenda 



Wednesday, March 21, 2001 



010145 [Sublease of Treasure Island Brig Facility for Sheriffs Department) 

Resolution approving a sublease, retroactive to July 1, 2000, between the City and County of San 
Francisco (The "City") and the Treasure Island Development Authority (The "Authority") for certain 
property on Treasure Island commonly known as the Bng (Buildings 670 and 67 1 ) located at the 
comer of 13th and M Streets on Treasure Island, for an annual rent not to exceed 5250,000 per year. 
(Real Estate Department) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

1/24/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee 

2/28/01 , CONTINUED. Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Michael Hennessey, Sheriff, Jean 

Manani, Chief Financial Officer, Sheriffs Department, Annemane Conroy, Executive Director. Treasure Island Development 

Authority; Anthony Dclucchi, Director of Property, Real Estate Division, Administrative Services Department 

Continued to 3/14/01. 

3/14/01, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Michael Hennessey, Sheriff, 

Annemane Conroy, Executive Director, Treasure Island Development Authority Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney 

Continued to 3/2 1/01. 



010372 [Treasure Island Cooperative Agreement] 
Mayor 

Resolution approving and authorizing the Treasure Island Development Authority to enter into the 
13th Modification to the Cooperative Agreement with the Navy to extend the Cooperative Agreement 
to June 30, 2001 for an additional amount of Navy reimbursement not to exceed SI 45,000. 

2/26/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee 



010355 [Lease Amendment, 1650 Mission Street) 

Resolution authorizing an amendment to lease real property at 1650 Mission Street for the 
Department of Aging and Adult Services. (Real Estate Department) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

2/21/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee 
3/14/01, CONTINUED. Speakers: None Continued to 3/21/01. 



010268 [Reserved Funds, Dept. of Public Works] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds. Department of Public Works (fiscal year 2000-01 
budget), in the amount of S504.225 for overtime expenditures and S476.000 to fund the additional 
General Laborer positions and provide training transitional employment opportunities for General 
Assistance welfare recipients. (Public Works Department) 

2/7/01 . RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee 



010440 [Increase of Services of the Budget Analyst for fiscal year 2000-2001 ] 

Motion amending the Agreement for Professional Budget Analyst Services between the City and 
County of San Francisco and Stanton W. Jones and Associates Debra A Newman Rodriguez. Perez. 
Delgado & Company Certified Public Accountants Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation 
Certified Public Accountants Mah & Louie Certified Public Accountants - ("A Joint Venture"), to 
increase the level of service for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 by S2 18,208. (Clerk of the Board) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

3/5/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 11:29 .AM on SjTS/01 



Finance Committee Meeting Agenda Wednesday, March 21, 2001 

8. 010274 [Business Tax Gross Receipts] 

Supervisors Gonzalez, Peskin, Maxwell, Hall, Sandoval, Daly, McGoldrick 

Ordinance amending the Business and Tax Regulations Code to (1) repeal Section 917.1 of Article 12- 
A and all of Article 12-B to eliminate the gross receipts method of calculating the tax on businesses; 
(2) enact a new Article 12 to amend business registration requirements consistent with the repeal of 
Article 12-B; and (3) enact a new Article 12-B to refund gross receipts-based tax payments for the 
2000 tax year to the extent that such payments exceeded businesses' tax liability for such year as 
measured by their payroll expense. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

2/12/01, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance Committee, expires on 3/14/2001. 

ADJOURNMENT 



IMPORTANT INFORMATION 

NOTE: Persons unable to attend the meeting may submit to the City, by the time the proceeding 
begins, written comments regarding the agenda items above. These comments will be made apart of 
the official public record and shall be brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors. Any 
written comments should be sent to Committee Clerk, Finance Committee, San Francisco Board of 
Supervisors, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco, California 94102 by 5:00 
p.m. on the day prior to the hearing. Comments which cannot be delivered to the committee clerk by 
that time may be taken directly to the hearing at the location above. 



LEGISLATION UNDER THE 30-DAY RULE 



(Not to be considered at this meeting) 

Rule 5. 42 provides that when an ordinance or resolution is introduced which would CREA TE OR 
REVISE MAJOR CITY POLICY, the committee to which the legislation is assigned shall not consider 
the legislation until at least thirty days after the date of introduction. The provisions of this rule shall 
not apply to the routine operations of the departments of the City or when a legal time limit controls 
the hearing timing. In general, the rule shall not apply to hearings to consider subject matter when 
no legislation has been presented, nor shall the rule apply to resolutions which simply URGE action 
to be taken. 



010433 [Ordinance amendment to increase Consumer Protection License Fees] 

Ordinance amending the San Francisco Municipal Code Business and Tax Regulations Code by 
amending Sections 35, 120, 248, and 249.1, relating to fees for licenses or permits for inspections by 
the Department of Public Health. (Public Health Department) 

3/7/01, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance Committee, expires on 4/1 1/2001. 



City and County of San Francisco S Printed at 11:29 AM on 3/1SAJ1 



Finance Committee Meeting Agenda Wednesday March 21,2001 

Meeting Procedures 

The Board of Supervisors is the Legislative Body of the City and County of San Francisco. The Board has 

several standing Committees where ordinances and resolutions are the subject of hearings at which members of 

the public are urged to testify. The full Board does not hold a second public hearing on measures which have 

been heard in committee. 

Board procedures do not permit persons in the audience at a Committee meeting to vocally express support or 

opposition to statements by Supervisors or by other persons testifying. Thus applause and booing are both 

contrary to Board requirements. The Board does not permit signs to be brought into the meeting or displayed m 

the room. 

Citizens are encouraged to testify at Committee meetings and to write letters to the Clerk of a Committee or to 

its members, City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodleft Place, Room 244, San Francisco, CA 94102. 

Agenda are available on the internet at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs.bos.htm. 

THE AGENDA PACKET IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT CITY HALL, ROOM 244, RECEPTION DESK. 

Board meetings are televised on channel 26. For video tape copies and scheduling call (415) 557-4293. 

Requests for foreign language translation at a meeting must be received by the Clerk of the Board of 

Supervisors at least 48 hours before the meeting. For meetings on a Monday or a Tuesday, the request must be 

made by noon of the last business day of the preceding week. 

Disability Access 

Both the Committee Room (Room 263) and the Legislative Chamber are wheelchair accessible. The closest 

accessible BART Station is Civic Center, three blocks from City Hall. Accessible MUNI lines serving this 

location are: #42 Downtown Loop, and the #71 Haight/Nonega and the F Line to Market and Van Ness and the 

Metro stations at Van Ness and Market and at Civic Center. For more information about MUNI accessible 

services, call 923-6142. 

There is accessible parking in the vicinity of City Hall at Civic Center Plaza and adjacent to Davies Hall and the 

War Memorial Complex. 

The following services are available when requests are made by 4:00 p.m. of the Friday before the Board 

meeting: 

For American Sign Language interpreters, use of a reader during a meeting, or sound enhancement system, 
contact Violeta Mosuela at (415) 554-7704. 

For a large print copy of agenda or minutes m alternative formats, contact Annette Lonich at (415) 554-7706. 
In order to accommodate persons with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or 
related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various 
chemical based products. Please help the City to accommodate these individuals. 

Know Your Rights Under the Sunshine Ordinance 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, boards, 
councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people's business. The Sunshine 
Ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the 
people's review. For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San 
Francisco Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact Donna Hall: by mail to Clerk 
of the Board of Supervisors, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlert Place. Room 244. by phone at (415) 554-7724. by fax at 
(415) 554-5784 or by email at Donna_Hall@ci.sf.ca. us 

Citizens interested in obtaining a free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance can request a copy from Ms. Hall or by 
printing Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code on the Internet, at 
http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshme.htm 



City and County of San Francisco 4 Printed at 11:29 AM on 3/15/01 



[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



).96 



</ol 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
■y 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



TO: ^Finance Committee 

FROM: JBudget Analyst 



SUBJECT: March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 
Items 1 and 2 - Files 01-0370 and 01-0371 



March 15, 2001 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
MAR 2 2001 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Note: These items were continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
March 7, 2001. 



Department: 
Items: 



Aging and Adult Services 

File 01-0370 : Supplemental Appropriation in the amount 
of $2,000,000 for senior program needs ($1,000,000) and 
infrastructure needs ($1,000,000); amending the Annual 
Salary Ordinance to create two new positions. 

File 01-0371 : Ordinance amending the FY 2000-2001 
Annual Salary Ordinance reflecting the creation of two 
new positions in the Aging and Adult Services 
Department. 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



$2,000,000 

General Fund Reserve 
Surplus FY 2000-01 Parking Tax 1 
Revenue for Senior Programs 
Total 



$1,439,000 

561.000 
$2,000,000 



1 Under Article 9, Section 615 of the Administrative Code, one third of all Parking Tax collections is 
dedicated to Senior Citizen's Programs. The Controller's Six Month Budget Status Report, issued on 
February 7, 2001 projected increased Parking Tax collections of approximately $1.7 million during 
FY 2000-2001. Therefore, the Controller has certified the availability of $561,000 for Senior Citizen's 
Programs, as shown in the Source of Funds table above. 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

New Positions: The proposed supplemental appropriation and Annual 

Salary Ordinance Amendment would create the following 
new positions: 

No. of Step 1 Step 5 

FTE (Biweekly- (Biweekly- 
Positions Classification Title Annual) Annual) 

2 4230N Estate Investigator SI, 778 $2,194 

S46.228 $57,044 

Description: As explained in the attached memorandum from Mr. John 

Clark, Acting Deputy Executive Director for the 
Department of Aging and Adult Services, the proposed 
supplemental appropriation would be a project 
appropriation, and any unexpended funds at the 
completion of the current, 2000-2001 Fiscal Year, would 
be carried forward for expenditure during FY 2001-2002. 

A total of $1,000,000 would be used to addressed 
identified Senior needs, including the foDowing: 

• Funding for direct services for non-profit, community 
based service providers based on a Request-for- 
Proposal (RFP) competitive process with special 
emphasis on joint collaborations between agencies, 
specific performance measures, and proposals serving 
groups with multiple needs. Expenditures are expected 
to total $552,504 for this purpose. 

• Funding unmet internal department needs, principally 
additional rent and moving costs related to the 
relocation of all operations to 1650 Mission Street and 
personal computers for Conservatorship Services 
employees in the amount of $300,000. 

• Funding to meet the need for more diversity in 
programs serving San Francisco veterans. The 
remaining funds would pay for two new positions to 
perform additional veteran's counseling services as 
City staff; one position would focus on the needs in the 
Filipino-American Community, and the other position 
would assist the Russian-American Community. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Expenditures would total approximately $142,496 for 
salaries and fringe benefits for 12 months and $5,000 
for two personal computers and related equipment for 
these two positions. 

In addition to the $1,000,000 for identified Senior Needs 
described above, the proposed supplemental appropriation 
would also provide for the expenditure of $1,000,000 for 
"Infrastructure Needs", defined as "ongoing costs of the 
non-profit contractors who perform these services for the 
City necessary to maintain existing service levels, 
including employee salary increases, increase [s] in rent, 
utilities and insurance, and replacement of worn-out 
equipment and vehicles". 

According to Mr. Clark, all expenditures from the 
$1,000,000 allocation to the infrastructure needs of non- 
profit contractors would be allocated by the Department 
of Adult and Aging Services based on an evaluation of 
specific proposals prepared by such non-profit contractors. 
The evaluation criteria that would be employed by the 
Department of Adult and Aging Services of such proposals 
would include the following: 

1. Program expense increases (e.g., gas, supplies, 
printing, raw materials, etc.) 

2. Rent/utility cost increases 

3. Technology replacement/upgrades (e.g., Personal 
Computers) 

4. Capital Expenditures (e.g., building modifications, 
equipment, etc.) 

5. Personnel-related costs: "wage-push" adjustments 
due to the Minimum Compensation Ordinance, 
salary enhancements. 

6. Training Costs for service provider staff. 

Comments: 1. As noted above, the proposed supplemental 

appropriation would be a project appropriation if 
approved, and any unexpended funds at the completion of 
the current, 2000-2001 Fiscal Year, would be carried 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



forward for expenditure during FY 2001-2002. After all of 
the requested $2,000,000 is expended, funding for such 
expenditures, including funding for the two new positions, 
would cease unless additional funds are appropriated for 
the same purpose. The proposed two new 4230 Estate 
Investigator positions are designated 'N' for new 
positions. However, because the positions would be 
funded by the project appropriation, the positions should 
be designated 'L' for Limited Duration positions. 
Therefore, the two positions would be terminated once the 
source of project funding is expended unless additional 
funds are appropriated. 

2. The Department of Adult and Aging Services is 
unable to provide full budget details for the $852,504 in 
non-personnel related services for identified Senior needs 
and $1,000,000 for infrastructure needs for non-profit 
contractors as separate RFP processes and competitive 
proposals have not been conducted by the Department. 

3. The original FY 2000-2001 Adult and Aging 
Services budget as approved by the Board of Supervisors 
and the Mayor totals approximately $23.6 million. Of that 
amount, approximately $10.3 million is funded from 
Parking Taxes, $5.36 million is from Federal and State 
grants and subventions dedicated to senior programs, 
$2.57 million from departmental revenues and $5.37 
million from General Fund support. As noted above, 
increased Parking Tax collections projected for FY 2000- 
2001 results in an additional $561,000 for Senior 
programs. Also, the Controller, the Mayor and the Budget 
Analyst are currently projecting that FY 2001-2002 
Parking Tax revenue growth would provide increased 
funds for Senior programs in the amount of an additional 
$1,000,000. 

As stated in the attached memorandum, the Board of 
Supervisors could consider an alternative policy decision 
to fund the proposed $2,000,000 in services and 
infrastructure needs from the following sources of funds: 



BOAED OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

General Fund Reserve $ 439,000 
Surplus FY 2000-2001 Parking Tax 

Revenue 561,000 
New FY 2001-2002 Parking Tax 

Revenue 1.000.000 

Total $2,000,000 

In order to implement the policy option to fund the 
$2,000,000 in services and infrastructure needs from the 
alternative sources identified above, the Board of 
Supervisors could approve the proposed supplemental 
appropriation to the FY 2000-2001 budget in the reduced 
amount of $1,000,000 ($439,000 from the General Fund 
Reserve and $561,000 from Surplus FY 2000-2001 
Parking Tax Revenue) and adopt a separate resolution 
urging the Department of Adult and Aging Services and 
the Mayor to fund the remaining $1,000,000 in services 
and infrastructure needs from incremental Parking Tax 
revenue in the FY 2001-2002 budget. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation (File 

01-0370) and the ordinance amending the Annual Salary 
Ordinance (File 01-0371) to change the designation for the 
two new positions from 'N' for New to 'L' for Limited 
Duration. 

2. Amend File 01-0370 by placing $1,852,504 ($552,504 
for funding direct services for non-profit, community- 
based service providers, $300,000 for Departmental needs 
and $1,000,000 for senior infrastructure needs) of the 
requested $2,000,000 on reserve pending submission of all 
program allocations and budget details to the Finance 
Committee. 

3. Approval of this proposed legislation, as amended, is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 




Attachment 
Fage 1 ot t 
City and County of San Francisco department of aging and adult services 

Mayor Willie L Brown, Jr. 
Dr. Sandra Y. Nathan, Executive Director 



Commission on the Aging 
Mental Health Conservator 

Public Administrator-Public Guardian 



MEMORANDUM 

TO: KEN BRUCE, Budget Analyst 

FROM: JOHN CLARK, Acting Deputy Executive Director 

DATE: MARCH 1,2001 

RE: SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION REQUEST FOR SENIOR PROGRAMS 

AND RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE (FILE 01-0370) 



As you are aware, the population of San Francisco is aging rapidly. AJong with the aging of our 
population comes an increase in the number of San Franciscans who require the assistance of 
various City agencies and non-governmental organizations to meet their daily needs. The 
Department of Aging and Adult Services' Commission on the Aging Division has surveyed 
residents, providers, health care organizations and others to determine the level of unmet needs 
in our community. 

The consensus of this research is that a considerable number of elderly San Franciscans are 
unable to access needed services. To combat this problem, staff, Commissioners and providers 
held a number of meetings to consider alternatives. Out of this process emerged a consensus that 
additional funds were needed for both infrastructure and ongoing unmet needs. 

Ongoing Unmet Needs 

As noted above, research indicates a significant number of San Francisco seniors are unable to 
receive sufficient assistance in a number of functional areas. Three prominent examples are 
housing counseling, to deal with issues such as evictions; expansion of home-delivered meal 
programs; providing enhanced veterans benefit counseling and paratransit services. With the 
exception of an adjustment of direct costs attributable to the Minimum Compensation Ordinance 
(MCO), programs serving the elderly have not received a funding increase in several years, 
despite the growth in the elderly population. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance provides for $1,000,000 in additional 
funding for ongoing unmet service needs. If approved, the Department of Aging and Adult 
Services will allocate approximately 5553,000 of these funds to non-profit, community-based 
service providers based on a Request-For-Proposal method with special emphasis on joint 
collaborations between agencies, specific performance measures, and proposals serving groups 
with multiple needs. 



25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 650, San Francisco, CA 94102 
Principal Number (41 5) 864-6051 Fax Number (41 5) 864-3991 

6 



r\ i_ i_cn;i.iuitsi.i i_ 



Page 2 of 4 

We would also use this portion of the supplemental to cover S300,000 of unmet internal 
department needs, principally additional rent and move costs relating to the relocation of 
operations to 1650 Mission Street, and the purchase of computers for the Office of 
Conservatorship Services, which presently has only four computers for 20 professional staff. 

Lastly, to meet the need for more diversity in programs serving San Francisco veterans, the 
rem ainin g "ongoing" funds will pay for two additional veteran's counselors on City staff: one 
focusing on needs in the Filipino-American Community, and the other assisting the Russian- 
American Community. The cost for these two additional counselors, including benefits, is about 
$147,000. The total then for ongoing unmet needs is $553,000+$300,000+S147,000=$l million 

These funds, if approved, would be available in the next fiscal year. 
Infrastructure Needs 

Infrastructure needs are defined as "ongoing costs (of the non-profit contractors who perform 
these services for the City) necessary to maintain existing service levels, including employee 
salary increases, increase[s] in rent, utilities and insurance, and replacement of wom-out 
equipment and vehicles." To the extent that infrastructure needs are ignored, community-based 
organizations lose the ability to maintain current service levels. Infrastructure needs are also 
typically the "last in line" for both governmental and charitable funding, as these sources are 
often limited to program operations. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance provides for $1,000,000 in additional 
funding for infrastructure needs. If approved, the Department of Aging and Adult Services will 
allocate all of these funds to existing contractors on a pro-rata basis, upon receipt of an 
acceptable project proposal from each contractor detailing how the funds are to be used, for the 
following purposes only: 

1. Program expense increase (e.g., gas, supplies, printing, raw materials, etc.) 

2. Rent/utility cost increase 

3. Technology replacement/upgrades (e.g., PCs) 

4. Capital Expenditures (e.g., building modifications, equipment, etc.) 

5. Personnel-related costs: "wage-push" adjustments due to the Minimum Compensation 
Ordinance, salary enhancements. 

6. Training Costs for service provider staff. 

In granting these additional funds, the department will assign priority to proposals that fund one- 
time purchases (e.g., technology) as opposed to ongoing expenses (like salary increases). 
Contractors will also be advised that to the extent that they use these infrastructure funds to pay 
for ongoing cost increases (like salaries), they are responsible for funding ongoing incremental 
costs in future years from non-City funding sources. These infrastructure enhancement funds 
will be available, if approved, beginning in the current fiscal year. 

Funding Sources 

To lessen the impact on the General Fund, it would be our recommendation to pay for these 
increases primarily through growth in the Off-Street Parking Tax Fund. The Controller estimates 
that there will be about $561,000 in excess parking tax funds in the current fiscal year, and about 
$1,000,000 additional next year. Meeting Supervisor Daly's $2,000,000 target would then 
require only $439,000 in General Fund reserve. 



Attachment 
^age 3 ot t 

I also note that this supplemental appropriation ordinance is structured as a continuing project, so 
that any unspent funds at the end of this fiscal year can be carried over into next year. This is 
necessary to allow for the carryover of unspent funds into FY 01-02 - we do not think it is 
possible to process all infrastructure requests and conclude the ongoing need RFP process before 
the end of this fiscal year. It would be our suggestion that the $1,000,000 in infrastructure funds 
be paid for through excess parking tax funds in this fiscal year, and General Fund reserve; while 
the $1,000,000 in ongoing unmet needs be funded through the anticipated increase in available 
parking tax funds next fiscal year. 

Conclusion 

The need for funding increases for programs serving the elderly and disabled adults is well 
documented. The Commission on the Aging and I believe that the attached proposed 
supplemental appropriation ordinance is a responsible approach that will address some of these 
unmet needs. 



Attachment 
Page h of i 
City and County of San Francisco department of aging and adult services 

Mayor Willie L. Brown, Jr. 
Dr. Sandra Y. Nathan, Executive Director 

Commission on the Aging 
Mental Health Conservator 

Public Administrator-Public Guardian 




Supplemental Appropriations Ordinance 

Position Detail 

FY 01-02 



(2) Classification 4230 Estate Investigator (Veteran's Counselor) @ S57,044 $114,088 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits @ 24.9% $ 28,408 

Equipment (two Personal Computers) (one-time only) $ 5.000 

TOTAL $ 147,496 



25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 650, San Francisco, CA 94102 
Principal Number (415) 864-6051 Rax Number (415) 864-3991 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 3 - File 01-0145 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
March 14, 2001. 



Department: 
Item: 



Location: 

Purpose of Sublease: 

Lessor: 

Lessee: 

Sublessee: 

Term of Sublease: 



Sheriffs Department 

Treasure Island Development Authority 

Resolution approving a sublease, retroactive to July 1, 
2000, between the City and the Treasure Island 
Development Authority for property on Treasure Island 
commonly known as the Treasure Island Naval Brig, or 
jail, (Buildings 670 & 671), located at the Corner of 13 th 
and M Streets on Treasure Island, for an annual rent not 
to exceed $250,000 per year. 

Treasure Island Brig facility (Buildings 670 & 671), 
located at the Corner of 13 th and M Streets 

Under the proposed sublease, the Sheriffs Department 
would use the Treasure Island Naval Brig for training 
and, in the case of an emergency, overflow jail facilities. 

U.S. Navy (Master Lease) 

Treasure Island Development Authority 

Sheriffs Department 

Commencing retroactively to July 1, 2000 and 
terminating on May 15, 2005, for a sublease term of four 
years and eleven months (See Comment No. 1). Under the 
proposed sublease, the Sheriffs Department would have 
three options for using the Naval Brig ("the Brig") facility: 

1) The Sheriffs Department would be authorized to use 
the Brig facility for a total of 90 days per fiscal year for 
Deputy Sheriff training purposes; 

2) Additionally, upon written notice of an emergency to 
the Treasure Island Development Authority, the 
Sheriffs Department would be able to use the Brig 
facility during an emergency to house approximately 
100 nonviolent prisoners during the duration of the 
emergency. 1 Under the proposed sublease, the Sheriffs 



1 The proposed lease defines "emergency" as "...any situation or condition in the City and 
County of San Francisco which creates a widespread threat to life, property, or the welfare of 
the City and County of San Francisco or its citizens as determined by the Mayor." 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
10 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Right of Renewal: 

Number of 
Square Feet: 



Department would not be charged additional rent by 
the Treasure Island Development Authority for such 
emergency use of the Brig facility; 

3) The Sheriffs Department may request permission 
from the Treasure Island Development Authority to 
use the Brig facility during non-emergencies to: (a) 
temporarily house approximately 100 nonviolent 
prisoners, or (b) use the facility for any use, such as 
longer-term housing of inmates, approved in writing 
by the Executive Director of the Treasure Island 
Development Authority. The Sheriffs Department 
would be required to make such requests at least 30 
days prior to the date the Sheriffs Department would 
like to begin using the facility. According to Mr. 
Stephen Proud of the Treasure Island Development 
Authority, before granting permission for such non- 
emergency use of the Brig facility, the Treasure Island 
Development Authority would have the option to 
negotiate an amended lease including an increased 
rent with the Sheriffs Department if the Sheriffs 
Department proposed using the facility for an 
extended period of time. Such a lease amendment and 
any related additional funds would be subject to 
approval by the Board of Supervisors. The subject 
sublease states that the Treasure Island Development 
Authority "...shall not unreasonably withhold 
permission to use the Premises during such non- 
emergency and/or non-Permitted Use Period." 

None 



Approximately 2.25 acres (98,010 square feet), including 
approximately 28,163 square feet for the Brig building. 
The balance of 69,847 square feet (98,010 less 28,163) 
would be used by the Sheriffs Department for secured 
prisoner outdoor recreation and parking. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Rent and Other Costs 

Payable to the Treasure 

Island Authority by the 

Sheriffs Department: $250,000 per year, paid annually in advance of July 1 st for 

each fiscal year during the four-year and eleven-month 
term of the lease. In addition to the $250,000 annual rent, 
the City will be required to pay to Treasure Island 
Development Authority additional fees of $19,620 per 
year, including: 

(1) The City will pay for the Common Area Maintenance 
Charge (Navy CAM Charge) fee charged by the Navy 
to the Treasure Island Development Authority under 
the Master Lease. Under the proposed sublease, the 
Sheriffs Department would be required to pay $900 
per month, or $10,800 annually, to the Treasure 
Island Development Authority for the CAM Charge. 2 

(2) The City will pay to the Treasure Island Development 
Authority a monthly Landscaping Charge of $735, for 
a total annual charge of $8,820. 

Therefore, the total annual charges to be paid by the 
Sheriffs Department to the Treasure Island Development 
Authority will be $269,620 ($250,000 in rent plus $19,620 
in additional fees). 

Ms. Jean Mariani of the Sheriffs Department advises 
that the Sheriffs Department will make Navy CAM and 
Landscaping payments monthly to the Treasure Island 
Development Authority, for the entire term of the 
sublease, whether the Sheriffs Department is using the 
facility or not. The proposed sublease contains no 
provisions for annual adjustments for the rent, the CAM 
or the Landscaping Charge. 



2 According to Mr. Stephen Proud of the Treasure Island Development Authority, the CAM is based 
on $0,025 per square foot per month for the 28,163 interior space of the Brig building and $0,003 per 
square foot per month for the 69,847 exterior space, totaling $913.62 per month. However, the 
proposed sublease states that the Navy CAM charge is not to exceed $900 per month. Therefore the 
Sheriffs Department would be required to pay to the Treasure Island Development Authority $900 
per month, or $10,800 annually. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Source of Funds: 



Utilities and 
Maintenance: 



Description: 



Ms. Mariani advises that the Sheriffs Department's 
Fiscal Year 2000-2001 General Fund budget includes 
$269,620 to fund the $250,000 in rent and $19,620 in 
additional fees discussed above, which the Sheriffs 
Department must pay to the Treasure Island 
Development Authority for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 (See 
Comment No. 4). 



Under the proposed sublease, the City would pay for all 
maintenance and utility costs at the Brig facility. Mr. 
Stephen Proud of the Treasure Island Development 
Authority advises that the City would be required to pay 
these costs, estimated at $92,000 annually, year round for 
the entire four years and eleven months of the sublease 
term. (See Comment No. 4 for all estimated costs.) 

On May 2, 1997, the Board of Supervisors authorized the 
creation of the Treasure Island Development Authority as 
a nonprofit public benefit corporation to act as a single 
entity focused on the planning, redevelopment, 
reconstruction, rehabilitation, reuse and conversion of 
former United States Naval Station Treasure Island 
(Resolution No. 244-97-3). On October 12, 1997, the 
California Legislature approved the Treasure Island 
Conversion Act of 1997, which designated the Authority 
as a trustee of the State Tidelands Trust and as a 
redevelopment agency with jurisdiction over Treasure 
Island and Yerba Buena Island. The Treasure Island 
Development Authority currently leases from the Navy 
the Treasure Island Brig facility, discussed below, under a 
five-year Master Lease, which began on April 5, 1999 and 
will terminate on April 4, 2004. (See Comment No. 2 
below). 

The proposed resolution would authorize a sublease 
between the City and the Treasure Island Development 
Authority for the Sheriffs Department to use the Brig on 
Treasure Island. The Brig is a two-story, 28,163 square 
foot jail facility built by the Federal government in 1992. 
As described above, under the proposed sublease the 
Sheriffs Department would have authority to use the 
Brig facility, for: (1) 90 days of officer training; (2) to 
temporarily house prisoners during an emergency; and (3) 
to temporarily house prisoners during non-emergency 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

periods, or for any other use, as approved by the 
Executive Director of the Treasure Island Development 
Authority. According to Mr. Proud, before granting 
permission for such non-emergency use of the Brig 
facility, the Treasure Island Development Authority 
would have the option to negotiate an amended lease and 
increased rent with the Sheriffs Department if the 
Sheriffs Department proposed using the facility for an 
extended period of time, which would be subject to 
approval by the Board of Supervisors. 

According to Ms. Mariani, the Sheriffs Department 
currently plans to use the Brig facility as a training 
facility and as a temporary emergency overflow jail. Ms. 
Mariani reports that the training to take place at the Brig 
would consist of an annual Advanced Officer course for all 
sworn employees working in City and County jails and a 
four- to seven-week introductory course for newly-hired 
officers. According to Ms. Mariani, the Sheriffs 
Department would use the Brig facility as a temporary 
overflow jail for emergencies such as large protests that 
result in mass arrests. Furthermore, Ms. Mariani advises 
that the Sheriffs Department does not have alternative 
vacant space for overflow housing of prisoners. In the 
past, when the Sheriffs Department has faced jail 
overcrowding, the Sheriffs Department has rented jail 
space from other jurisdictions, and when such space is not 
available, the Sheriffs Department has been forced to 
release prisoners from custody early, according to Ms. 
Mariani and as stated in Attachment I, provided by the 
Sheriffs Department. 

Tenant 

Improvements: The Fiscal Year 1997-98 budget, as finally approved by 

the Board of Supervisors, included a $2,100,000 General 
Fund reserve for the Treasure Island Brig project. The 
Sheriffs Department planned a project that would convert 
the Treasure Island Brig facility to a permanent jail 
facility that would house 140 prisoners in order to relieve 
jail overcrowding at County Jail No. 3 in San Bruno. Ms. 
Mariani advises that the Sheriffs Department was never 
able to operate the Treasure Island Brig as a full-time jail 
due to insufficient staffing (discussed further in Comment 
No. 6 below). Ms. Mariani advises that since 1997, the 
Sheriffs Department has expended a total of $1,099,409 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

14 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

in capital improvements, listed as construction costs in 
Attachment II, provided by the Sheriffs Department. In 
addition, Attachment III provided by the Sheriffs 
Department contains an explanation of these projects and 
the amount originally budgeted for these projects, totaling 
$1,380,000 or $280,591 less than the actual expenditures 
of $1,099,409 due to savings realized during construction, 
according to Ms. Mariani. 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Mariani, the proposed sublease will 

commence retroactively because the Sheriffs Department 
has been using the Brig since July 1, 2000 for training 
purposes. Ms. Mariani advises that the Sheriffs 
Department did not first obtain Board of Supervisors 
approval before using the Treasure Island Brig facility 
because the Sheriffs Department and the Treasure Island 
Development Authority were negotiating to finalize the 
sublease documents. 

2. As noted previously, the Treasure Island Development 
Authority currently leases from the Navy the Treasure 
Island Brig facility under a five-year Master Lease, which 
began on April 5, 1999 and will terminate on April 4, 
2004. The Budget Analyst notes that the term for the 
proposed sublease between the Sheriffs Department and 
the Treasure Island Development Authority would expire 
on May 15, 2005, more than one year past the expiration 
of the Master Lease with the Navy. Mr. Proud advises 
that the Treasure Island Development Authority expects 
to complete the transfer of ownership of the Naval Station 
on Treasure Island from the Navy to the Treasure Island 
Development Authority before the Master Lease the 
Treasure Island Development Authority holds with the 
Navy expires. According to Mr. Proud, in the event that 
such a transfer does not take place before the Master 
Lease expires, the Treasure Island Development 
Authority would seek an extension of the Master Lease 
with the Navy. 

3. Ms. Mariani reports that, since 1997, the Sheriffs 
Department has expended a total of $2,335,311 at the 
Treasure Island Brig, including a total of $1,099,409 in 
construction costs and $1,235,902 in operational costs, as 
outlined in Attachment II, provided by the Sheriffs 
Department. Ms. Mariani advises that the total 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



$1,235,902 in operating costs, including the limited 
staffing, utilities and supplies required to support the 
construction improvements taking place. The total 
expenditure of $2,335,311 also includes $44,248 in 
operating costs since July 1, 2000 for Fiscal Year 2000- 
2001. According to Ms. Mariani, upon approval of the 
proposed sublease, the Sheriffs Department would also 
pay to the Treasure Island Development Authority the 
entire $250,000 in rent for FY 2000-2001, plus the $900 
monthly Navy CAM fees and the $735 monthly 
Landscaping fees, discussed above, retroactive to July 1, 
2000, for a approximate total one-time payment of 
$263,080 ($250,000 rent plus $7,200 for eight months of 
Navy CAM fees and $5,880 for eight months of 
Landscaping fees, for July of 2000 through February of 
2001). Ms. Mariani advises that the Sheriffs Department 
has a total of $269,620 in the department's Fiscal Year 
2000-2001 budget to cover this one-time payment of 
$263,080, as well as the $3,600 in Navy CAM fees and 
$2,940 for the remaining four months of Fiscal year 2000- 
2001 (March through June of 2001). 

4. As shown in Attachment II, provided by the Sheriffs 
Department, annual cost to the Sheriffs Department for 
the proposed lease and operation of the Treasure Island 
Brig would be an estimated $373,620 per year. This 
annual budget of $373,620 includes: (a) $269,620 in rent 
and additional fees to be paid to the Treasure Island 
Development Authority ($250,000 for rent plus $10,800 
for the Navy CAM Charge plus $8,820 in Landscaping 
fees), (b) $80,000 for utilities, (c) $12,000 for maintenance, 
(d) $10,000 for contractual services, including pest control 
and the purchase of bottled water, and (e) $2,000 for 
materials and supplies. Ms. Mariani advises that the 
Sheriffs Department would use existing staff and salaries 
to provide staffing at the Brig during training periods. 
According to Ms. Mariani, if the Sheriffs Department 
were to house prisoners temporarily at the Brig during an 
emergency, the Sheriffs Department would most likely 
staff the facility using overtime funds. Depending on the 
scale of the emergency, the Sheriffs Department would 
either fund the additional costs of operating an emergency 
overflow jail at the Brig from existing budgeted funds or 
be required to request a supplemental appropriation for 
such unexpected costs, according to Ms. Mariani. Ms. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Mariani advises that the Sheriffs Department is unable 
to provide an estimate for how much additional funding 
would be needed, since such an estimate would depend 
entirely on the magnitude of emergency. 

5. Under the proposed sublease, the Sheriffs Department 
would not have exclusive rights to the Treasure Island 
Brig. The sublease states that the Treasure Island 
Development Authority "...shall have the right to enter 
and use the Premises at any time during the Term of this 
Agreement which does not conflict with any Permitted 
Use Period." Mr. Proud advises that such provision was 
included to allow the Treasure Island Development 
Authority access to the Treasure Island Brig, when the 
Sheriffs Department was not using the facility, for 
purposes such as renting the facility to film studios or 
other short-term purposes. 

6. In 1997 the Sheriffs Department began plans to 
renovate the Treasure Island Brig facility in order to use 
the Treasure Island Brig as a full-time County Jail. 
Initially, the Sheriffs Department proposed housing an 
average of 130 to 140 prisoners who would otherwise be 
housed at Jail No. 3 in San Bruno, as part of an effort to 
relocate as many inmates as possible from Jail No. 3 in 
anticipation of the United States District Court 
stipulating that the Sheriffs Department must reduce the 
inmate population at San Bruno Jail No. 3. However, Ms. 
Mariani advises that ultimately, the Sheriffs Department 
was able to f ulfill required improvements at the San 
Bruno Jail No. 3, outlined by the United States District 
Court, without relocating prisoners to the Treasure Island 
Brig. As described in further detail below, the Sheriffs 
Department completed capital improvements at the 
Treasure Island Brig during Fiscal Years 1997-1998 and 
1998-1999. However, in Fiscal Year 1999-2000, the 
Sheriffs Department was unable to house inmates at the 
Treasure Island Brig due to insufficient staffing. 

Ms. Mariani advises that after the Sheriffs Department 
completed its capital improvements to the Treasure 
Island Brig, in Fiscal Year 1999-2000 the department 
began using the Treasure Island Brig for training 
purposes. Mr. Proud advises that the Sheriffs 
Department did not pay any rent to the Treasure Island 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Development Authority during completion of the capital 
improvements at the Treasure Island Brig or during the 
subsequent period of training during Fiscal Year 1999- 
2000. 

Fiscal Year 1997-1998 

In November of 1997 the Board of Supervisors approved a 
supplemental appropriation of $1,699,955 (File 101-97-20) 
to fund capital improvements and operating costs at the 
Treasure Island Brig, as well as to fund 24 new positions 
(22 Deputy Sheriffs and two engineers), which the Board 
of Supervisors also approved in 1997 to staff the Treasure 
Island Brig. 3 However, Ms. Mariani advises that Sheriffs 
Department did not house inmates at the jail in Fiscal 
Year 1997-1998 because the capital improvements 
required more time than was originally expected and 
were not completed until the end of Fiscal Year 1998- 
1999. As a result, the Sheriffs Department expended a 
total of $932,289 on the Treasure Island Brig in Fiscal 
Year 1997-1998, as shown in Attachment II. The total 
expended amount of $932,289 included $573,560 in 
capital costs and $358,729 in operating costs for the 
limited st affin g, utilities and supplies required to support 
the construction improvements taking place, according to 
Ms. Mariani. Ms. Mariani advises that the Sheriffs 
Department did not fill the 24 new positions approved the 
previous fiscal year and instead used the resulting salary 
savings to fund deficits in other accounts in the 
department's budget. 

Fiscal Year 1998-1999 

According to Ms. Mariani, in Fiscal Year 1998-1999, the 
Sheriffs Department was appropriated $5,989,987 in its 
original budget, for operating costs ($5,173,526) and 
additional capital improvements ($816,461) to run a full- 
time jail at the Treasure Island Brig. Ms. Mariani advises 
that the budgeted amount for operating costs included 
approximately $2.3 million for the salaries, benefits and 
related costs of approximately 42 existing positions to be 
transferred from the San Bruno Jail No. 3 to the Treasure 
Island Brig. However, the Sheriffs Department again 
postponed operating the Brig as a full-time jail in order to 



3 The $1,699,955 appropriation was made from a $2,100,000 General Fund Reserve that was 
established by the Board of Supervisors in the Fiscal Year 1997-98 budget for the Naval Brig 
on Treasure Island. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



complete additional improvements necessary for housing 
inmates, according to Ms. Mariani. Ms. Mariani advises 
that in Fiscal Year 1998-1999, the Sheriffs Department 
expended $1,135,018 at the Treasure Island Brig, as 
outlined in Attachment II, leaving a balance of $4,854,969 
(original budget of $5,989,987 less expenditures of 
$1,135,018). Of this balance of $4,854,969, Ms. Mariani 
advises that approximately $2.3 million funded the 
existing 42 employees discussed above, which remained at 
the San Bruno Jail No. 3 and were never transferred to 
the Treasure Island Brig as previously planned. Ms. 
Mariani advises that in Fiscal Year 1998-1999, the 
Sheriffs Department again postponed filling the 24 new 
positions approved in Fiscal Year 1997-1998, and the 
department used the resulting salary savings of 
approximately $2,554,969 to fund deficits in other 
accounts in the department's budget. 

Fiscal Year 1999-2000 

Ms. Mariani advises that for Fiscal Year 1999-2000, the 
Sheriffs Department was appropriated $5,195,625 in its 
original budget for expenditures at the Treasure Island 
brig. However, in Fiscal Year 1999-2000, the Sheriffs 
Department was unable to house inmates at the Treasure 
Island Brig due to insufficient staffing, according to Ms. 
Mariani. Ms. Mariani advises that a growing inmate 
population in the County required the Sheriffs 
Department to operate San Bruno Jail No. 3 at full 
capacity, thus preventing the Sheriffs Department from 
transferring the existing 42 San Bruno positions to the 
Treasure Island Brig and leaving the Treasure Island 
Brig with insufficient staff to operate as a jail. Ms. 
Mariani states in Attachment I that the Sheriffs 
Department has never received full funding to operate the 
Treasure Island Brig and all other jails in the system at 
full capacity at the same time. Ms. Mariani further 
advises that the Treasure Island Brig is a very labor- 
intensive jail and that operating San Bruno Jail No. 3 at 
full capacity is more cost effective than transferring 
inmates to the Treasure Island Brig. As stated previously, 
the Sheriffs Department had originally made plans to 
operate a full-time jail at the Treasure Island Brig in 
anticipation of the United States District Court requiring 
a reduction in the number of inmates at San Bruno Jail 
No. 3, which ultimately was not necessary. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



However, in order to meet staffing requirements outlined 
by the United States District Court's ruling against the 
Sheriffs Department, the Sheriffs Department 
reassigned to the San Bruno Jail No. 3 the 24 new 
positions originally approved in Fiscal Year 1997-1998 for 
the Treasure Island Brig. As a result, the Sheriffs 
Department expended only $223,756 of its Fiscal Year 
1999-2000 budget of $5,195,625 for the Treasure Island 
Brig. Ms. Mariani advises that the remaining balance of 
$4,971,869 was used: (a) to fund the existing 42 
employees that were intended to be transferred to the 
Treasure Island Brig but instead remained at San Bruno 
Jail, (b) to fill the 24 positions approved in Fiscal Year 
1997-1998 for the Treasure Island Brig, but now needed 
at the San Bruno Jail No. 3. Ms. Mariani advises that any 
additional salary savings realized from position vacancies 
was used to fund deficits in other accounts in the Sheriffs 
Department's budget. 

7. Ms. Mariani states in Attachment I that: 

"...While the jail population has leveled off over 
the past year, it is again on the increase. We 
cannot predict the size of our jail population in the 
future and we will not have a new jail facility [to 
replace the San Bruno Jail No. 3] for at least three 
years. Therefore, it is only prudent that we protect 
the investment the City has made in [the Treasure 
Island Brig] as a hedge against future population 
increases. It is also insurance against another 
Federal lawsuit should the jails become 
overcrowded during this period." 

Ms. Mariani advises that, at this time, the Sheriffs 
Department will take advantage of using the Treasure 
Island Brig for training, which will be greatly enhanced 
by having access to actual jail cells. Ms. Mariani reports 
that due to the County's large inmate population, which 
currently consist of approximately 1,900 inmates in the 
City's eight jails, the Sheriffs Department has no other 
vacant jail space available for training. Prior to the 
Sheriffs Department beginning to use the Treasure 
Island Brig for training purposes in Fiscal Year 1999- 
2000, the Sheriffs Department was required to hold 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



training in a conference room located in City-owned office 
space at 555 7 th Street. Ms. Mariani notes that this 
conference space does not meet the Sheriffs Department's 
training needs because it is particularly important for 
newly-hired officers to gain training experience in a 
actual jail facility as opposed to using a simulated 
environment. In addition, the Sheriffs Department will 
have access to the Treasure Island Brig to house prisoners 
during emergencies. 

8. The proposed sublease states that both the City and the 
Treasure Island Development Authority "...may 
terminate this Sublease prior to the Expiration Date [of 
May 15, 2005] by giving to the other party written notice 
of intent to terminate the Sublease one year prior to the 
intended date of termination." 

9. According to Mr. Proud, the Treasure Island 
Development Authority hired a private firm, Clifford 
Associates, to appraise the value of the subject Treasure 
Island Brig facility. On July 21, 2000, the appraiser 
determined that the fair market rent for the Brig facility 
would be $1.1 million per year. Mr. Proud advises that 
the Treasure Island Development Authority has agreed to 
charge the Sheriffs Department an annual rent of 
$250,000, or 22.7 percent of the Brig's annual rental 
market value, since the Sheriffs Department will only be 
authorized to use the Brig facility for 90 days, or 
approximately one-fourth of a year, per year for training 
purposes. Mr. Steve Alms of the Real Estate Division of 
the Administrative Services Department has reviewed the 
appraisal of the Brig facility commissioned by the 
Treasure Island Development Authority and agreed that 
the rent charged to the Sheriffs Department represents 
fair market value. 

10. The subject sublease states that the Sheriffs 
Department: 

"...shall not permit any inmates to be housed at 
the premises who have a known record of violent 
behavior, including without limitation, a known 
record for murder, manslaughter, assault, battery, 
rape, or sexual molestation. Subtenant [Sheriffs 
Department] shall not permit any portion of the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
21 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Premises to be used as a shooting range by any of 
the Subtenant's peace officers, personnel, or 
invitees. Subtenant acknowledges that there are 
residential dwellings and a public elementary 
school in the general vicinity of the Premises, and 
Subtenant agrees to use good faith efforts to 
prevent any interference with such residential and 
public school activities by Subtenant's use of the 
Premises." 

Mr. Proud advises that the Treasure Island Development 
Authority plans to give residents on Treasure Island 30 
days notice of any plans of the Sheriffs Department to 
house inmates in the Brig facility in non-emergency 
situations. In addition, Ms. Mariani advises that the 
training to be conducted at the Brig by the Sheriffs 
Department will not involve any live ammunition or 
chemical agents. 

11. Under the proposed sublease, the Sheriffs 
Department indemnifies the Treasure Island 
Development Authority and the Navy, as Master 
Landlord, and their agents and employees as defined in 
the lease. The proposed sublease states: 

"Subtenant [Sheriffs Department], on behalf of 
itself and Subtenant's Agents, covenants and agrees 
that the Indemnified Parties [described above] and 
Master Landlord shall not be responsible for or 
liable to, and, to the fullest extent allowed by any 
Laws, Subtenant hereby waives all rights against 
the Indemnified Parties and releases them from, 
any and all Losses, including, but not limited to, 
incidental and consequential damages, relating to 
any injury, accident or death of any person or loss or 
damage to any property, in or about the Premises, 
from any cause whatsoever, including without 
limitation, partial or complete collapse of any 
improvements on the Premises due to an 
earthquake or subsidence, except only to the extent 
such Losses are caused by the negligence or willful 
misconduct of the Indemnified Parties." 

According to Mr. Donnell Choy of the City Attorney's 
Office, the indemnification provision contained in the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET-ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

sublease is standard in all subleases entered into by the 
Treasure Island Development Authority with any entity 
wishing to sublease property on Treasure Island. Mr. 
Choy advises that if there were another large earthquake 
comparable to or greater in magnitude than the 1989 
Loma Prieta Earthquake during the term of this sublease, 
the City would not be able to look to the Treasure Island 
Development Authority to recover any losses arising 
therefrom, according to Mr. Choy. Mr. Choy advises that 
when the City is acting as the landlord in its own leases, 
the City includes similarly broad indemnification 
provisions in its leases. 

12. In summary, the Budget Analyst notes the following: 
(a) since Fiscal Year 1997-1998, the Sheriffs Department 
has expended a total of $1,099,409 (Attachment II) in 
capital expenditures to convert the Treasure Island Brig 
into a jail usable by the City; (b) the Sheriffs Department 
originally intended to house approximately 130 to 140 
inmates at Treasure Island Brig in an effort to relieve 
overcrowding at the San Bruno Jail No. 3; (c) in order to 
staff the converted Treasure Island Brig, the Sheriffs 
Department received 24 new positions during Fiscal Year 
1997-1998; (d) the Sheriffs Department was also 
budgeted funds to operate the Treasure Island Brig as a 
full-time jail, including $5,173,526 in Fiscal Year 1998- 
1999 and $5,195,625 in Fiscal Year 1999-2000; (e) such 
operating costs included funding for 42 existing positions, 
which the Sheriffs Department planned to transfer from 
the San Bruno Hail No. 3 to the Treasure Island Brig, but 
was unable to do so due to increased staffing needs at the 
San Bruno Jail No. 3; (f) because the Treasure Island Brig 
configuration is such that its operation is more labor- 
intensive than other City jail facilities, the Sheriffs 
Department was unable to operate the Treasure Island 
Brig due to staffing limitations and, therefore, expended 
the additional funds elsewhere in the City jail system to 
compensate for an increase in the prisoner population; 
and, (g) by requesting that the Board of Supervisors 
approve the subject sublease of the Treasure Island Brig, 
the Sheriffs Department is now proposing to use the 
Treasure Island Brig for the alternative purpose of 
training officers and maintaining space for emergency 
overflow housing of inmates. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



13. The Finance Committee, at its February 28, 2001 
meeting, requested that the Sheriffs Department account 
for all funds appropriated to the Treasure Island Brig 
since 1997. Attachment IV, provided by the Sheriffs 
Department, contains the Sheriffs Department's response 
to the Finance Committee. The Budget Analyst notes the 
following from the information provided by the Sheriffs 
Department: 4 

(a) During Fiscal Year 1997-1998, the Sheriffs 
Department expended a total of $329,570 on 
operating costs at the Treasure Island Brig, or 
$702,896 less than the $1,032,466 appropriated by 
the Board of Supervisors for such purposes. Ms. 
Mariani advises that the unexpended balance of 
$702,896 was returned to the General Fund at the 
close of Fiscal Year 1997-1998. 

(b) During Fiscal Year 1998-1999, the Sheriffs 
Department expended a total of $547,337 on 
operating costs at the Treasure Island Brig, or 
$4,698,881 less than the $5,246,218 appropriated for 
such purposes. 5 Ms. Mariani advises that of the 
unexpended balance of $4,698,881, a total of 
$3,257,766 was transferred to cover costs at the San 
Bruno Jails, Nos. 3 and 7, (largely to fund the 42 
existing positions that the Sheriffs Department had 
planned to transfer to the Treasure Island Brig but 
was unable to do so due to increased staffing needs 
at the San Bruno Jails). Ms. Mariani advises that 
the remaining $1,441,115 of the $4,698,881 
unexpended balance was used to help offset deficits 
in Overtime and training costs due to vacancies. 



(c) For Fiscal Year 1999-2000, Ms. Mariani advises that 
the Sheriffs Department originally included 
$5,195,625 in its budget request to fund operating 
costs at the Treasure Island Brig. However, due to 



4 The Budget Analyst notes that the budget totals in Attachment IV differ from those in Attachment 
II because Attachment IV does not include capital or equipment costs. 

6 According to Ms. Mariani, this appropriation amount of $5,246,218 for Fiscal Year 1998-1999 
includes encumbrances carried over from the previous fiscal year and is therefore $72,692 more 
than the appropriation amount of $5,173,526 shown in Comment No. 6 above, previously provided 
by Ms. Mariani. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



insufficient funds to staff the Treasure Island Brig at 
full capacity, this $5,195,625 originally designated 
for the Treasure Island Brig in the Sheriffs 
Department's budget request were transferred by the 
Mayor's Budget Office to the budget for the San 
Bruno Jails before the Sheriffs Department's budget 
was submitted to the Board of Supervisors for 
approval, according to Ms. Mariani. In addition, for 
Fiscal Year 1999-2000, the Board of Supervisors 
appropriated a Reserve for Jail Overcrowding of 
$2,500,000 for the Sheriffs Department in the event 
that the Sheriff was able to staff the Treasure Island 
Brig if necessary due to overcrowding in other City 
jails. Instead, this Reserve of $2,500,000 was 
subsequently released by the Board of Supervisors to 
help fund the Sheriffs Department's Fiscal Year 
1999-2000 supplemental appropriation of $4,695,097 
used to fund overspending, including Overtime, and 
other unforeseen costs in the department (File No. 
00-0774). 

The Budget Analyst notes that the Sheriffs 
Department's budget for operating costs at the San 
Bruno Jails increased in Fiscal Year 1999-2000 by 
$7,585,091, or more than 75 percent, from 
$10,066,836 in Fiscal Year 1998-1999 to $17,651,927 
in Fiscal Year 1999-2000. 6 As shown in Attachment 
rv, the San Bruno Jails budget ended Fiscal Year 
1999-2000 with a surplus of $3,120,865 ($3,308,468 
less $187,603), which was used to help offset deficits 
in Overtime and training costs due to vacancies, 
according to Ms. Mariani. 



14. At its February 28, 2001 meeting, the Finance 
Committee also raised questions about the appraisal that 
determined the fair market value of the subject Treasure 
Island Brig facility, completed by Clifford Associates, a 
private firm hired by the Treasure Island Development 
Authority. On July 21, 2000, the appraiser determined 
that the fair market rent for the Brig facility would be 
$1.1 million annually, on which the Treasure Island 



6 The budget figures for San Bruno Jail No. 3 include salaries and benefits required as a 
result of an earlier lawsuit, shown as the "Besk Case" in Attachment IV. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Development Authority based the $250,000 annual rent it 
proposes to charge the Sheriffs Department for limited 
use of the Treasure Island Brig under the subject lease, 
retroactive to July 1, 2000. 7 According to the Real Estate 
Division, Clifford Associates reports that this appraisal of 
the Brig facility did not include the $1,099,409 in capital 
improvements, which the Sheriffs Department had spent 
since Fiscal Year 1997-1998 for the Treasure Island Brig, 
as described in Attachment III. Mr. Proud advises that 
the Treasure Island Development Authority did not offer 
the Sheriffs Department any reimbursement or rent 
credits to compensate for the improvements completed by 
the Sheriffs Department, because: (a) the Treasure Island 
Development Authority leases all of its facilities on an "as 
is" basis; (b) the appraisal of the Treasure Island Brig did 
not include any of the Sheriffs Department's 
improvements to the Brig in evaluating the fair market 
rent of the facility; and (c) the Sheriffs Department 
elected to complete such improvements based on the 
Sheriffs Department's assessment of the improvements 
needed to operate the Brig as a jail facility. 

15. At its March 14, 2001 meeting, the Finance 
Committee requested that the Treasure Island 
Development Authority amend the proposed lease to the 
Sheriffs Department for use of the Treasure Island Brig 
to: (a) shorten the term of the lease agreement, (b) reduce 
the amount of the Navy's Common Area Maintenance 
Charge (Navy CAM Charge) and Landscaping fees that 
the Sheriffs Department must pay, and (c) use in the 
lease a legal definition for "violent offenders," which the 
Sheriffs Department is prohibited from housing at the 
Treasure Island Brig under the proposed lease. In 
addition the Finance Committee requested that the 
Sheriffs Department provide a cost comparison between 
providing training at the Treasure Island Brig versus 
providing training at another location. As of the writing of 
this report, the requested lease amendments and cost 
comparisons were not yet available. The Treasure Island 
Development Authority and the Sheriffs Department will 



7 As stated previously, the Treasure Island Development Authority agreed to charge the 
Sheriffs Department an annual rent of $250,000, or 22.7 percent of the Brig's annual rental 
market value of $1.1 million, since the Sheriffs Department will only be authorized to use 
the Brig facility for 90 days, or approximately one-fourth of a year, per year. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
26 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

provide such information to the Finance Committee 
directly at its meeting of March 21, 2001. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



ity and County of San Francisco 



FFICE OF THE SHERIFF 




Attachment I 
Pae;e 1 ot Z 



lA Michael Hennessey 
SSI SHERIFF 

415 - 554 - 7225 



February 20, 2001 
Ref. No.: CFO 01-002 



TO: Budget Analyst's Office 

FROM: Jean M. Marianufchief Financial Officer 

SUBJECT: Lease of the Treasure Island Brig 

During 1997, the City was under a federal court order to resolve jail 
overcrowding and conditions at County Jail #3 in San Bruno. In 
conjunction with the Mayor and the City Attorney, the Sheriff proposed 
opening the Treasure Island Brig to reduce the population at CJ#3 as 
part of the settlement of the lawsuit. The Board of Supervisors 
approved a supplemental appropriation that year, anticipating 
occupancy of the Brig sometime in the following fiscal year (see Lt. 
LaVigne's February 9, 2001 memorandum for a discussion of the 
capital improvements related to the facility). 

When the final draft of the settlement was presented to the court, use 
of the Treasure Island Brig to house prisoners was not included. 
However, greatly increased staffing at CJ #3 was part of the 
settlement, so the staff approved for TI were assigned to CJ #3 
instead. 

Because the jail population was continuing to increase during that 
time, we were concerned that we would have need of the Brig for 
overflow purposes. We do not have other appropriate vacant space for 
housing prisoners. In those instances in the past where we have had 
significant and serious overcrowding, the Sheriff has been forced to 
release prisoners from custody early (or rent space in Alameda 
County's jail, now unavailable). 



iCl 456, CTY HALL 

CARLTQM B. OCOQLETT 7UAC2 



SAM FRAnCISCO, CA W103 
Hvc.titxl faf-cr 

28 



FAX 4 13 • SB* • 7CSO 



Attachment I 
Page 2 of 2 



While the jail population had leveled off over the past year, it is again 
on the increase. We cannot predict the size of our jail population in the 
future and we will not have a new jail facility (to replace C3 #3) for at 
least three years. Therefore, it is only prudent that we protect the 
investment the City has made in this facility as a hedge against future 
population increases. It is also insurance against another federal 
lawsuit should the jails become overcrowded during this period. 

In the interim, the Sheriff's Department has taken advantage of the 
facility for training. State training standards for deputy sheriffs require 
four to six weeks of core training in jail management techniques 
before working in a jail, as well as 24 hours of annual training for 
continuing certification. Having actual jail cells available enhances 
training in cell removal techniques, etc. 

We have used the Treasure Island Brig for prisoners twice, during the 
2000 millennium weekend, to free up space at the 425-7 CT St. jail in 
case there were mass arrests, and for a multi-jurisdiction mass-arrest 
coordination site with the U.S. Marshal and the FBI. 

The attached spreadsheet presents the Sheriff's Department 
expenditures to date for the Treasure Island Brig. Our estimated 
annual costs, including lease, utilities, and maintenance expense, are 
approximately $373,620. The Mayor's Office included and the Board of 
Supervisors approved $260,871 for this lease payment in our 2000-01 
budget. 

In 1997-98 and 1998-99, the Sheriff's Department budget included 
appropriations of $1,699,955 and $5,989,987 for operating the 
Treasure Island Brig. In 1999-00, we combined the TI Brig budget with 
the San Bruno budget, and used the vacant positions in the TI budget 
to meet the terms of the federal court settlement. The TI Brig is a very 
labor-intensive jail, less cost-effective to operate than the Sheriff's 
other facilities. The Sheriff has never received full funding to operate 
the TI Brig and all other jails in the system at full capacity. The 
funding levels presumed partial closure of several floors of CJ #3, and 
a transfer of those Inmates and deputies to TI. 



29 



90 "d IblQl 



Attachment II 



o 

c 

H 
O 

tt> 



CD 
Hi 



a 

CD 
CU 

rr 

3 
m 

3 
rt 



* 




H 


"n 


O 


^ mis 


C!< 


CD 


CO 






s 

o 




ST 

en 


0) 

co. 
73 

3 


o 

C3 

cn 

c 

n_ 

5" 

3 


o 

S" 

o 

-1 
D. 

CD 
— i 
CO 


c | 
"O 

3 

CD 

3_ 


o 

Cfl 

CO 

c 
-a 


5" 

02 


CD 

3 

3" 

3 
03 
3 
O 
CD 


o 

3 

—i 
cu 
o_ 

E 

CO 


CD 

3 
CD 


CU 

cn 

— t 

cd' 

05 
















1 


-g_ 




CO 


CD 
























5" 




CD 
2 


2 

n 
























i 


CO 


CD 
























1 


CD C° 
























1 


03 


. _.L 












CD 




Ul 














_^ 




_^ 






CO 




-J 




tol CD 




CD 




ro 


ro 


cc 






roi 


CO 


CD CO 


■sj 


■P". 




CO 


o 


CO 






















IT 1 






ro; 


Oli 


-h cn 


CO 


CO 




ro 


CO 






CO 


col 


cn -£> 


CO 


o 




*» 


on 




CO 






co| i 


Oj . 


CD 


CO 


o 


ro 




ro 


CO 




CO 






. 




























































— k 




Cn 






— i 










CO 




CD 






CO 




ro 




CO 


o 


cn 


— k 


— *. 


cn 


mA 




O 






en 




cn 




i. 


o 


co 


ro 


-* 


co 


ro 




CO 






o 




"co 


CO 


"ro 


"o 


"co 


"o 


"co 


"co 




CO 






k 




4* 


1 CO 


o 


-^ 


cn 


cn 


— t 


—j 




CD 


i 


CD 
JO 


i 


co 


i jro 


-J 


— x 


CO 


o 


— k 


ro 




























-A 






ro 










_i 


~-j 


_i. 


—i. 


— * 


00 




CO 






CO 






—A. 


CO 


o 


00 


— j. 


cn 


CO 


CO 




CO 






























CO 






--4 






CO 


cn 


X 


~vl 


ro 


X 


_i 


CO 




r 






cn 






CD 


cn 


-fc* 


ro 


CO 


O 


CD 


cn 




o 






CO 


1 


i 


CD 


o 


CO *w| CO 


CO 


O 


CO 




o 






1 i ! 




Ito 






*>. 










J co 


— *•■ i 




! o 






£> 










o 


— 1. 






• o 








l 


















■ o 






"ro 








CO 


CO 


"co 


o 






: A. 






*» 


1 






CD 


-j 


—X 


CD 














CO 


' 1 * 


i 


1 


-*■ 


ro 


-* 


-p- 


' 


' I 


* 






N 




_i 


























co 




o 


i 


_Jb. 


_>. 


_J. 




— i 


on 




H 






CO 




CD 




CD 


CD 


CO 


— i. 


ro 


o 


ro 




o 






en 




CD 


— ». 


-£• 


CD 


CD 


CD 


^j 


ro 


ro 






































CO 




£> 


co 


cn 


CO 


ro 


ro 


ro 


->j 


cn 




w 






— v 




o 


CD 


+wi c 


CO 


cn 


J* 


£t 


CO 










■ 


CO 


CD 




° 


■>! 


ro 
L . 


o 


CO 


—i. 





— 


... 


1 
i 


CO 


ro 


i 




i 










! 


--- 


> 

3 
3 


; 


■nJ 


OJ 










CD 


_ k 


—M ' 




CO 


CO 








!ro 


o 


ro 


Ol 




















~— i • i 




CO 


CO 








"o 


o 


o 


O' i 


C 




ro 


ro 








o 


o 


o 


o| 


QJ 




o 


o 


i 


1 


1 


o 


Oi o 

1 


°l 



-* £ 

CD 3 

cn 4 1 

C oj 

CO C/> Cfl 

CD Q) 2 

5* Q. 03 

"D £ ® 

o J? 

s-B a 

CD CD 

3 -a 

a. dj 

— "i 

3 I 

CD CD 

C/) 3 



30 




Attachment III 
Page 1 ot 2 



San Francisco Sheriffs Department 

INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE 

Sheriffs Bureau of Building Services 

Arm: Ms. Jean Mariani VAjQ/) Friday, February 09, 2001 

From: LL Michael La Vigne /^ — 

Subj: Capital Improvements at tie Treasure Island Brig 

The following is a short history arid accounting of the capital improvements the SFSD has 
made to date at the Treasure Island Brig. 

1996 - In anticipation of the CCSF taking over the Treasure Island & Verba Buena Island 
properties from the U. S. Navy, inspections of the various buildings were performed by CCSF and 
California State officials having jurisdiction. In mid 1 996 (May & June) the SFSD received copies 
of seismic, building code, and fire/life safety code deficiency reports from the CCSF, California 
Board of Corrections, and California Stale Fire Marshal The SFSD also reviewed the Brig to 
determine what security or operational modifications would have to be made to accommodate 
prisoners. 

1997 - Based upon the above surveys and reports, the SFSD developed a scope of work to 
correct the code, security and operational issues. From this scope of work a capital budget was 
developed and su bmitt ed to the CCSF as supplemental budget request in August of that year. This 
supplemental budget request, along with an ordinance permitting the SFSD to contract for the 
work, was approved by the CCSF Board of Supervisors in November 1997. The scope of work 
was divided into three basic contracts as indicated below: 

Electronic Security Svstern Improvements: 

Scope: Replace central control panel, add CCTV cameras and monitors, repair and replace locks 

and moving gates. 
Cost: £240,000 
Time: January- April 1998 

Prisoner Exercise Yard Improvements: 

Scope: Replaces old fencing with new double security fence and paves over gravel exercise yards. 

Cost: 5340,000 

Time: Jury -November 1998 



Page 1 of 2 
31 



Attachment III 
Page Z ot 2 



Fire/Life Safety Upgrades: 

Scope: 'Replaces old fire alarm system, apply spray-on cernennrious fire proofing on underside of 
roofs and roofing supports, replaces several doors and frames with code compliant 
assemblies, remodels p aths of travel to provide clear fire exit routes, and upgrades and 
expands the fire sprinkler system. 

Cost: S800,000 

Time: September 1998 - March 1999 

In addition to the above, the SFSD has made improvements to the temperature control system of 
the Brig, as well as installed some kitchen equipment. 

The CCSF still has some disability access issues at the Brig, but at this point we have closed out 
all construction contracts, and any disability access issues would be addressed in the future. 

If you have any Questions, please calL 



Page 2 of 2 
32 



City and County of San Francisco 



OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF 




Attachment IV 
Fape 1 ot i 



<£\ Michael Hennessey 

SHERIFF 
415 - 554- 7225 



MEMORANDUM 



March 6, 2001 
Reference: CFO 01-004 



TO: 



FROM 



SUBJECT: 



Finance Committee Members 



Jean MarianirChief Financial Officer 

Sheriff's Department Expenditures, Treasure Island Brig 
(File 01-0145) 



You have requested additional details on the Sheriff's Department 
expenditures related to budget allocations for the Treasure Island (TI) 
Brig. 

The following appropriation and expenditure information is from 
FAMIS, based on the year-end reports for each fiscal year and reflects 
the General Fund operating budgets for each budget unit indicated. 

Following are the 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 appropriations, 
expenditures and balances for the TI Brig, the San Bruno Jail complex 
(which includes County Jail (CJ) #3, the subject of the Jones lawsuit, 
and CJ #7) and the Besk Case (which aggregates expenditures 
resulting from a previous CJ #3 lawsuit). These three budget units 
include all positions assigned to CJ #3. 



!OOM 456, Cnr HALL 
DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE 



SAM FRANCISCO. CA 



94102 
11 



FAX 415 -554 • 7050 



Sheriff's Department 
March 6, 2001 
Page 2 



Attachment IV 
rage 2 o£ 5 



Fiscal Year 1997-98 Operating Budget Appropriations and Expenditures 



Index Code 


060313 


060310 


060311 


TOTALS 


FY 1997-98 


Treasure 
Island Brig 


San Bruno Jails 


Besk Case - CJ 
#3 


San Bruno/TI 












SALARIES 










Appropriation 


649,696 


6,200,156 


1,687,460 


8,537,312 


Expenditure 


120,853 


6,331,652 


1,605,136 


8,057,641 


Balance 


528,843 


(131,496) 


82,324 


479,671 












BENEFITS 










Appropriation 


194,909 


2,063,663 


576,978 


2,835,550 


Expenditure 


28,242 


2,008,983 


513,440 


2,550,665 


Balance 


166,667 


54,680 


63,538 


284,885 












SERVICES 










Appropriation 


88,986 


545,000 


5,000 


638,986 


Expenditure 


91,940 


436,235 


- 


528,175 


Balance 


(2,954) 


108,765 


5,000 


110,811 












SUPPLIES 










Appropriation 


98,875 


1,994,942 


- 


2,093,817 


Expenditure 


88,535 


2,056,278 


- 


2,144,813 


Balance 


10,340 


(61,336) 


- 


(50,996) 












OTHER DEPTS. 










Appropriation 


- 


358,180 




358,180 


Expenditure 


- 


- 




- 


Balance 


- 


358,180 


- 


358,180 












TOTALS 










Appropriation 


1,032,466 


11,161,941 


2,269,438 


14,463,845 


Expenditure 


329,570 


10,833,148 


2,118,576 


13,281,294 


Balance 


702,896 


328,793 


150,862 


1,182,551 



For Fiscal Year 1997-98, these three budget units had total operating 
budget appropriations of $14,463,845, expenditures of $13,281,294 
and a remaining balance of $1,182,551, which reverted to the General 
Fund at year end because the department overall had a remaining 
General Fund balance in its operating budget of $1,594,047. 



Sheriff's Department 
March 6, 2001 
Page 3 



Attachment IV 
Page J ot i 



Fiscal Year 1998-99 Operating Budget Appropriations and Expenditures 



Index Code 


060313 


060310 


060311 


TOTALS 


FY 1998-99 


Treasure 
Island Brig 


San Bruno Jails 


Besk Case - CJ 
#3 


San Bruno/TI 












SALARIES 










Appropriation 


3,642,589 


4,240,557 


1,766,571 


9,649,717 


Expenditure 


312,372 


6,850,917 


1,800,380 


8,963,669 


Balance 


3,330,217 


(2,610,360) 


(33,809) 


686,048 










- 


BENEFITS 








- 


Appropriation 


1,031,937 


339,347 


366,966 


1,738,250 


Expenditure 


58,311 


1,463,416 


336,247 


1,857,974 


Balance 


973,626 


(1,124,069) 


30,719 


(119,724) 










- 


SERVICES 






- 


Appropriation 


136,0001 544,500 


5,0001 685,500 


Expenditure 


76,447 


602,000 


- 


678,447 


Balance 


59,553 


(57,500) 


5,000 


7,053 






1 


SUPPLIES 






- 


Appropriation 


435,692 


2,406,018 


-1 2,841,710 


Expenditure 


100,207| 2,182,872 


-! 2,283,079 


Balance 


335,4851 223,146 


-! 558,631 






OTHER DEPTS. 






. 


Appropriation 


- 


397,877 


397,877 


Expenditure 


86,860 


86,860 


Balance 


- 


311,017 


- 311,017 








- 


TOTALS 






- 


Appropriation 


5,246,218 


7,928,299 


2,138,537| 15,313,054 


Expenditure 


547,337 


11,186,065 


2,136,627 


13,870,029 


Balance 


4,698,881 


(3,257,766) 


1,910 


1,443,025 



As shown in the table, the TI Brig balance of $4,698,881 was offset by 
a San Bruno deficit of $3,257,766. While the budget transferred 
approximately $3.7 million of salaries, benefits and positions from San 
Bruno to TI, TI did not open and, because the jail system was over 
capacity, San Bruno continued to use the transferred positions at CJ 
#3. The remaining balance in these three budget units and from other 
parts of the department was used to offset a deficit of $3,591,064 in 
the Department Services budget unit. 



35 



Sheriff's Department 
March 6, 2001 
Page 4 



Attachment IV 
Page 4 of 5 



Fiscal Year 1999-00 Operating Budget Appropriations and Expenditures 



Index Code 


060313 


C60310 


060311 


TOTALS 


FY 1999-2000 


Treasure 
Island Brig 


San Bruno Jails 


Besk Case - CJ 

#3 


San Bruno/TI 












SALARIES 










Appropriation 


- 


10,014,244 


1,883,781 


11,898,025 


Expenditure 


89,356 


7,583,519 


2,094,710 


9,767,585 


Balance 


(89,356) 


2,430,725 


(210,929) 


2,130,440 










- 


BENEFITS 








- 


Appropriation 


- 


1,901,953 


389,383 


2,291,336 


Expenditure 


16,190 


1,582,723 


371,057 


1,969,970 


Balance 


(16,190) 


319,230 


18,326 


321,366 










- 


SERVICES 








- 


Appropriation 


- 


1,079,698 


5,000 


1,084,698 


Expenditure 


103,113 


503,952 


- 


607,065 


Balance 


(103,113) 


575,746 


5,000 


477,633 










- 


SUPPLIES 








- 


Appropriation 


424 


1,927,611 


- 


1,928,035 


Expenditure 


10,149 


2,161,758 


- 


2,171,907 


Balance 


(9,725) 


(234,147) 


- 


(243,872) 










- 


OTHER DEPTS. 








- 


Appropriation 


48,640 


450,257 




498,897 


Expenditure 


1,398 


233,343 




234,741 


Balance 


47,242 


216,914 


- 


264,156 










- 


TOTALS 








- 


Appropriation 


49,064 


15,373,763 


2,278,164 


17,700,991 


Expenditure 


220,206 


12,065,295 


2,465,767 


14,751,268 


Balance 


(171,142) 


3,308,468 


(187,603) 


2,949,723 



In 1999-00, because sufficient funding was not appropriated to staff at 
capacity the TI Brig and all other jails in the system, the TI budget was 
collapsed into the San Bruno budget. The TI positions were then 
identified as those positions agreed to as part of the Jones settlement 
which occurred late in 1998-99. Again, the year-end balance was used, 
along with other department balances, to offset the Department 
Services budget unit deficit of $6,224,337. 



36 



Attachmen t IV 

Sheriffs Department 
March 6, 2001 
Page 5 



The deficits in the Department Services budget unit result from the 
manner in which positions are budgeted in the Sheriff's Department. 
We list positions in the appropriate budget unit to reflect the 
authorized staffing for each Department facility and program. This 
authorized staffing accounts for every department position shown in 
the budget. This creates a mismatch between budget and spending 
when a position is assigned to academy training. For costing purposes, 
training is allocated as a department-wide function, so the academy- 
assigned position is paid from the Department Services budget, even 
though the position is budgeted in another unit. The Sheriff's 
Department 2001-02 budget request includes a reallocation to correct 
this mismatch. 

If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (415) 
554-4316. 



cc: Gail Johnson, Clerk, Finance Committee 
Ed Harrington, Controller 
Erin McGrath, Mayor's Office 
Taylor Emerson, Mayor's Office 
Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 



37 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 4 - File 01-0372 

Department: 

Item: 



Description: 



Mayor's Office, Treasure Island Development Authority 

Resolution approving and authorizing the Treasure Island 
Development Authority to extend and modify an existing 
Cooperative Agreement with the Navy, for the one year 
period, retroactive to October 1, 2000, through September 
30, 2001, whereby the Treasure Island Development 
Authority will continue to meet responsibilities regarding 
the operation and maintenance of Treasure Island 1 , and 
the Navy will reimburse the Treasure Island 
Development Authority for a portion of such costs, of up to 
$145,000. 

On May 2, 1997, the Board of Supervisors approved 
Resolution No. 380-97, authorizing the Mayor's Treasure 
Island Project Office to establish a nonprofit public 
benefit corporation known as the Treasure Island 
Development Authority to act as a single entity focused 
on the planning, redevelopment, reconstruction, 
rehabilitation, reuse and conversion of the Treasure 
Island and Yerba Buena Island for the public interest, 
convenience, welfare and common benefit of the 
inhabitants of the City. On September 30, 1997, the Navy- 
closed Treasure Island as an active Naval Base. The 
California Legislature subsequently approved the 
Treasure Island Conversion Act of 1997, which designated 
the Treasure Island Development Authority as a trustee 
of the State Tidelands Trust and as the Redevelopment 
Agency for Treasure Island. 

On October 1, 1997, concurrent with the operational 
closure of the Naval Base, the City entered into a 
Cooperative Agreement, with the Navy, with approval 
from the Board of Supervisors, in which the City agreed to 
assume responsibility for the following caretaker services 
on Treasure Island: (1) operation and maintenance for the 
water, waste water, storm water, electric and gas utility 
systems on the Naval Base, (2) public health, security and 
safety services, (3) grounds and street maintenance and 
repair, and (4) property management and caretaker 



1 All references to "Treasure Island" in the proposed Cooperative Agreement refer to the entire 
former Treasure Island Naval Station, which included the adjoining Yerba Buena Island. 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 
38 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



services. Subsequently, the Cooperative Agreement was 
modified, with the approval of the Board of Supervisors 
(File 98-1751), to make the Treasure Island Development 
Authority, rather than the City, the party to the 
Cooperative Agreement, and the Cooperative Agreement 
was extended for an additional one-year period, from 
October 1, 1998 to September 30, 1999 (coinciding with 
the Federal fiscal year). In 1999, the Board of Supervisors 
again approved an extension of the Cooperative 
Agreement, for the period from October 1, 1999 to 
September 30, 2000 (File 99-1970). 

For each year of the Cooperative Agreement, the Navy 
agreed to reimburse the City the following amounts to 
help fund the costs of providing the above described 
maintenance, security and other activities on the closed 
Naval Base. 



Year of Cooperative Agreement 
(based on Federal Fiscal Year of 
October 1 through September 30) 


Amount Paid to 
City by Navy 


FY 1997-1998 


$6,058,214 


FY 1998-1999 


4,000,000 


FY 1999-2000 


2,500,000 


Total 1 $12,558,214 



According to Mr. Stephen Proud of the Treasure Island 
Development Authority, it is the Navy's policy to fund 
only those services the Navy itself would perform on a 
closed Naval Station. Mr. Proud advises that the amount 
of the above funds, provided to the City by the Navy, was 
established by the Navy and was based on Navy costs to 
achieve Navy standards, rather than being based on City 
costs to meet City standards. According to Mr. Proud, in 
entering the Cooperative Agreement with the Navy, the 
Treasure Island Development Authority understood that 
the Navy would gradually decrease its funding to the City 
as the City moved closer to acquiring full ownership of 
Treasure Island, which is expected to happen 
approximately in January of 2002, and the Treasure 
Island Development Authority leased additional areas of 
the former Naval Base from the Navy for revenue 
generation. Mr. Proud advises that, in past years, the 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 
39 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Treasure Island Development Authority has offset 
reductions in funds paid by the Navy with increased 
rental revenues derived from the property on Treasure 
Island leased by the Treasure Island Development 
Authority from the Navy. Attachment I, provided by the 
Treasure Island Development Authority, describes which 
City departments and organizations currently lease 
property on Treasure Island and provide services to the 
Treasure Island Development Authority, resulting in a 
rental revenue of approximately $4,821,212 annually to 
the Treasure Island Development Authority, and which 
services the City provides on Treasure Island. 

The proposed resolution would approve an extension and 
modification to the existing Cooperative Agreement 
between the Navy and the Treasure Island Development 
Authority, retroactively for the period from October 1, 
2000 to September 30, 2001. The proposed extended 
Cooperative Agreement would reduce the annual amount 
paid to the Treasure Island Development Authority by the 
Navy to $145,000, a reduction of $2,355,000, or 
approximately a 94 percent reduction, from last year's 
payment of $2,500,000 from the Navy. In addition, the 
proposed extended Cooperative Agreement would transfer 
responsibility from the Navy to the City for setting utility 
rates for all lessees on Treasure Island, as discussed 
below. 

REDUCED FUNDS 

Under the proposed modification, the Navy would provide 
the Treasure Island Development Authority with 
$145,000 for caretaker services on Treasure Island, as 
discussed above, retroactively for the Federal Fiscal Year 
of October 1, 2000 through September 30, 2001. As noted 
above, the proposed modification results in a reduction of 
$2,355,000, or approximately a reduction of 94 percent, in 
the reimbursement amount paid to the Treasure Island 
Development Authority, from the $2,500,000 paid to the 
City for Federal Fiscal Year 1999-2000 to the $145,000 to 
be paid to the City for Federal Fiscal Year 2000-2001. 

Mr. Proud advises that during the negotiations for the 
Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Cooperative Agreement between 
the Navy and the Treasure Island Development 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 
40 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Authority, the Navy informed the Treasure Island 
Development Authority that beginning in Federal Fiscal 
Year 2000-2001, the Navy would no longer provide the 
City with funding for caretaking services on Treasure 
Island. However, through negotiations, the Navy agreed 
to make one last annual payment to the City of the 
subject $145,000. Mr. Proud advises that the Treasure 
Island Development Authority had understood such an 
reduction, and eventual elimination, of Federal funding 
would occur, given that: (a) such Federal funding was 
subject to the Federal appropriation process, and (b) the 
original Cooperative Agreement approved in 1997 stated 
that the Navy would not provide funding for caretaker 
services on property formally leased by the Navy to the 
Treasure Island Development Authority, and thus the 
Navy would reduce its funding as the Treasure Island 
Development Authority increased the amount of property 
it leased from the Navy. 

Mr. Proud advises that under the original 1997 
Cooperative Agreement, the Navy did not provide the 
Treasure Island Development Authority with a schedule 
of annual reductions in funding. 

Mr. Proud advises that the $145,000 would fund the 
following caretaker services: (a) 555,000 for grounds 
maintenance, (b) $25,000 for building and streets 
maintenance, and (c) $65,000 for utility maintenance. 
According to Mr. Proud, these costs are in addition to the 
funds already budgeted for such services, shown in 
Attachment II. In order to expend the subject $145,000, 
the Treasure Island Development Authority is required to 
obtain prior Board of Supervisors appropriation approval 
(See Comment No. 7). 

Attachment II, provided by the Treasure Island 
Development Authority, contains the Treasure Island 
Development Authority's budget for Fiscal Years 1999- 
2000 and 2000-2001. The $2,500,000 awarded to the 
Authority for federal fiscal year 2000 (October 1, 1999 - 
September 30, 2000) was included in the Authority's FY 
1999-2000 budget approved by the Board of Supervisors, 
with $625,000 to be carried forward to fund caretaker 
activities in the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2000-2001 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

41 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



(July 1 through September 30, 2000). In addition to the 
$625,000 carried over from Fiscal Year 1999-2000, the 
Treasure Island Development Authority budgeted 
revenues in the total amount of $4,821,212 in Fiscal Year 
2000-2001, which includes special event use permits 
($396,212), commercial leases ($1,100,000), and housing 
leases ($3,325,000), as shown in Attachment II. According 
to Mr. Proud, the Treasure Island Development Authority 
expects to meet this non-Federal revenue budget of 
$4,821,212 for Fiscal Year 2000-2001. These revenues 
fund the cost of interim operations including activities 
related to negotiations with the Navy for the transfer of 
the base to the City and long-term planning for the 
anticipated Treasure Island Redevelopment Project. 

SETTING UTILITY RATES 

The proposed extension and modification to the existing 
Cooperative Agreement with the Navy would also enable 
the City to set utility rates charged to lessees on Treasure 
Island, including rates charged for water, electricity, gas, 
sanitation services and storm water collection and 
treatment services. 

Since October 1, 1997, the City's PUC has been providing 
utilities to Treasure Island using a utility rate structure 
established by the Navy. Mr. Proud advises that the rates 
were based on the Navy's estimate of its costs to acquire 
commodities and its costs to operate and maintain the 
utility delivery systems in place on Treasure Island. The 
Navy has not re -evaluated this utility rate structure since 
it was established in 1997, according to Mr. Proud. 
Attachment III, provided by the PUC, describes the PUC's 
role in operating and providing utilities on Treasure 
Island. 

Mr. Proud advises that in December 2000, due to the 
dramatic increase in the cost of natural gas, the City's 
PUC requested authorization from the Navy to increase 
the rate charged to natural gas users on Treasure Island. 
The Navy did not increase rates, but instead proposed 
excluding itself from setting utility rates on Treasure 
Island. Therefore, through this proposed Cooperative 
Agreement modification, the City would accept the 
responsibility for setting utility rates. 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

42 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Mr. Proud advises that the Treasure Island Development 
Authority has not yet determined how it will set utility 
rates charged to its lessees on Treasure Island. The 
Treasure Island Development Authority is currently 
working with the City's PUC to determine a process for 
doing so, according to Mr. Proud. Mr. Proud advises that 
rates would most likely be based on the cost of purchasing 
and supplying the utilities, and that the PUC is concerned 
about recovering the full cost of supplying such utilities to 
lessees on Treasure Island. Attachment TV, provided by 
the Treasure Island Development Authority, contains the 
rates currently charged by the Navy and revised rates 
previously proposed by the City's PUC. The only change 
in this proposal would have been to increase the rates 
charged for natural gas in order to recover costs. 
However, the PUC continues to charge the rates set by 
the Navy, because the rates previously proposed by the 
PUC were never finalized or enacted, according to Mr. 
Proud. (See Comments Nos. 3, 4 and 5). 

Comments: 1. As noted previously, the proposed resolution would 

modify and extend the existing Cooperative Agreement 
between the Navy and the City for the period from 
October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001. Mr. Proud advises 
that the Treasure Island Development Authority did not 
obtain approval from the Board of Supervisors before the 
subject extension would have begun on October 1, 2000 
because the Treasure Island Development Authority and 
the Navy were continuing to negotiate the terms of the 
extension. This resolution should be amended to state 
that the proposed Cooperative Agreement extension 
would expire on September 30, 2001, thus correcting: (a) 
language in the resolution's title stating that the proposed 
extension would expire on June 30, 2001, and (b) 
language in the body of the resolution stating that the 
proposed extension would expire on June 20, 2001. 

2. According to Mr. Proud, since the existing Cooperative 
Agreement with the Navy expired on September 30, 2000, 
the Treasure Island Development Authority has 
continued providing caretaking services at Treasure 
Island. 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

43 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



3. A stated previously, the Treasure Island Development 
Authority has not yet determined the process it will use 
for setting utility rates to be charged to lessees on 
Treasure Island. According to Mr. Proud, the Treasure 
Island Development Authority and the PUC will continue 
to charge the utility rates set by the Navy until such a 
process has been established. The Budget Analyst 
recommends that the proposed resolution be amended to 
require that the Treasure Island Development Authority 
report back to the Board of Supervisors to present the 
process that the Treasure Island Development Authority 
and the PUC create for setting the utility rates to be 
charged to Treasure Island Lessees. 

4. The Budget Analyst notes that the Sheriffs 
Department, Fire Department and Police Department all 
have leases pending approval on Treasure Island, 
according to Mr. Proud. Any future increases in the rates 
the Treasure Island Development Authority charges for 
utilities would increase the cost of such City General 
Fund departments operating on Treasure Island. 

5. The Budget Analyst notes that under the Federal Base 
Closure and Realignment Act, the United States 
Department of Energy makes low-cost Federal electrical 
power available to support economic development for the 
conversion of military bases. Between October 1, 1997 
and September 29, 1998, the Navy purchased such 
Federal electrical power from the Western Area Power 
Administration (WAP A) on behalf of the City's PUC in 
order to supply electrical power to Treasure Island. On 
October 7, 1998, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
contract between the City and the United States 
Department of Energy which enabled the PUC to 
purchase such power directly from WAPA in order that 
the City could continue to receive the benefits of the low 
cost Federal electrical power without having to purchase 
it through the Navy (File 98-1776). This contract came 
into effect on October 1, 1998 and was originally due to 
expire on December 31, 2004. In January of 2001, the 
Board of Supervisors approved an additional contract, 
enabling the City to continue purchasing low cost 
electrical power from WAPA for Treasure Island for an 
additional 20 years. 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

44 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

6. Mr. Proud notes that the Treasure Island Development 
Authority's budget is subject to approval by the Board of 
Supervisors and that most maintenance and other 
responsibilities in the subject Cooperative Agreement will 
be performed by City agencies, whose costs are to be 
reimbursed by the Treasure Island Development 
Authority. Services such as pest control, asbestos 
removal, janitorial, and certain machinery repair will be 
contracted to private companies. Certain services, such as 
grounds maintenance and janitorial, are provided by 
organizations belonging to the Treasure Island Homeless 
Development Initiative (TIHDI) pursuant to Board of 
Supervisors Resolution 672-96, dated July 1, 1997 which 
directed the Authority to contract with TIHDI 
organizations to provide employment opportunities for 
homeless and other economically disadvantaged San 
Francisco residents. 

7. The Budget Analyst notes that this $145,000 to be paid 
by the Navy to the Treasure Island Development 
Authority was not included in the Treasure Island 
Development Authority's Fiscal Year 2000-2001 budget, 
as previously approved by the Board of Supervisors. 
Therefore, in order to expend the $145,000, the Treasure 
Island Development Authority would be required to 
request appropriation approval from the Board of 
Supervisors. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to state that the 
proposed Cooperative Agreement extension with the Navy 
would expire on September 30, 2001, thus correcting: (a) 
language in the resolution's title stating that the proposed 
extension would expire on June 30, 2001, and (b) 
language in the body of the resolution stating that the 
proposed extension would expire on June 20, 2001, in 
accordance with Comment No. 1 above. 

2. Amend the proposed resolution to require that the 
Treasure Island Development Authority report back to 
the Board of Supervisors to present the process that the 
Treasure Island Development Authority and the PUC 
create for setting the utility rates to be charged to 
Treasure Island Lessees, in accordance with Comment 
No. 3 above. 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 
45 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



3. Based on the previous policy and budgeting decisions of 
the Board of Supervisors, approve the proposed 
resolution, as amended. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 
46 



Attachment 1: Treasure Island Revenue Generation 

The Treasure Island Development Authority leases Treasure Island buildings and facilities from the US 
Navy for revenue generation to fund interim operations and long term planning activities. The Authority 
leases Treasure Island's Casa de la Vista, Chapel, Fogwatch, Nimitz Conference Center, Great Lawn and 
Building 180, and Yerba Buena Island's Nimitz House principally as venues for special events such as 
weddings, parties, picnics and business meetings. Buildings 2 and 3 (built as airplane Hangars) are leased 
for movie and television production, and several smaller buildings, such as the former base library, are 
leased to private, for-profit enterprises. Other facilities, such as the fire fighting training facility and the 
brig, are leased to City agencies such as the Fire and Sheriff's Departments for their ongoing activities. The 
TI marina is leased to Treasure Island Enterprises (TEE) for interim marina operations while the TI Project 
and lit negotiate the long term development of the marina. The Authority also has provided an area 
leased to telecommunications companies for cellsites. 

Housing on the former naval station is leased to the John Stewart Company (JSC) and organizations 
belonging to the Treasure Island Homeless Development Initiative (TTHDI)- The JSC lease is for 766 units 
(574 units in phase 1 and 192 units in Phase 2). The leases to TTHDI member organizations include: 

• Catholic Charities - 366 units 

• Haight Ashbury Free Clinic - 1 8 units 

• Swords to Plowshares 24 units 

• Walden House 14 units 

The housing leases were approved by the Board of Supervisors in March 1999, and it is the lease of the 
approximately 70 acres of housing that represents the largest shift in TI properties from maintenance 
responsibilities under the Cooperative Agreement to lease. 

Attached is a map that shows the various areas of TI & YBI under lease. The areas crosshatched are under 
lease to the Authority. The areas on TI that remain "without crosshatching" are the areas that the Authority 
maintains on behalf of the Navy. 

City Services on Treasure Island 

The SFPD provides police services on TI and the SFFD provides fire protection and suppression services. 
DPW bureaus perform most of the building and street maintenance. TI streets are not leased by the 
Authority and are included in the Authority's caretaker operations. Similarly maintenance of the TI utility 
systems (also not leased by the Authority) is provided by the SFPUC. The PL'C also earns revenues from 
TI's tenants for utility services. At the time of the housing lease, we estimated that the PUC would earn 
about S14 million from TI's residential tenants over the 7-year term of the housing lease. 

Source: Treasure Island Development 

Authority 



47 



>5URE ISLAND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 



Attachm ent II 
' M emo ur' 



t-2000. 



I Budget 

uive Agreement Funding 

il vent Use Permits 

* ial Leases 

Leases 

s Budget 

Sety 

C! Cable Maintenance 

■- Maintenance 

j Street Maintenance 

r. , Contractual & other Services IV 

it itenance 



Total 
CA+NonCA 

6,775,000 



6,775,000 

2,093,883 

50,000 

500,000 
1,655,970 
2.227,647 

246.500 



Non-Coop 
Agreement 
subtotal 
3,900,000 

1,400,000 
1,200.000 
1,300,000 

3,900,000 

1.475,133 



187,500 

447.220 

1,790.147 





Cooperative 

Agreement 

subtotal 

2,875,000 

2.875,000 







2,875,000' 

618,750 

50.000 

312,500 

1,209,750 
437.500 
246,500 



7/1/99 
through 
9/9/99 
1,000,000 

1,000,000 






1,000,000 1,875,000 



375,000 
12,500 

125.000 

300,000 
62,500 

125,000 



243.750 
37,500 
187,500 
909,750 
375,000 
121,500 




Budget 

il 5 Agreement Funding 
E ■ Use Permits 
rc I Leases 
lases 

- Jdget 

ay 

unable Maintenance 

' intenance 

8 treet Maintenance 

si Contractual & other Services IV 

liunance 

if ental recovery 



Total 
CA+NonCA 

5,446,212 



5,446,212 

3,786,712 

12,500 

500,000 

1,661,750 

3,005,621 

40,500 

-3,560,871 



Original 
Non-Coop Cooperative 7/1/00 10/1/00 

Agreement Agreement through through 

subtotal subtotal 9/30/00 OT0/01 

4,821,212 625,000** 625,000 

625,000 625.000 

396,212 
1.100,000 
3,325,000 

4,821,212 

3.705,462 



437.500 

1.358,500 

2.880.621 



-3,560.871 



625,000 

81,250 
12,500 
62,500 
303.250 
125,000 
40,500 



625,000 
81.250 
12.500 
62.500 
303,250 
125.000 
40,500 




Source: Treasure Island Development Authority 



*^2f5of; °oT WaS C3rrled ° Ver fr ° m the Na ^' s FY 1999-2000 funding 



48 



Attachment III 



<Ptr 




HETCH HETCHY 

Water Be Power 



Willie I— Brown, Jr. 
Mayor 

President 
Victor G. Makras 
vice President 
Ann Moller Caen 
E. Dennis Normandy 
Frank 1_ Cook 
ashok kumar bhatt 

John P. Mullane, Jr. 

General Manager 




555 »^^ft T A 4 R&TS<§'O Ff P g 0^BPU c I a <S 4I BPTTt r^ ^*°^G?0 W^i\^3 4 [ J ^6^ 



MEMORANDUM 

TO: Emilie Neumann, Board Analyst 

FROM: Laurie Park, Hetch Hetchy Acting General Manager 

SUBJECT: Relationship of SFPUC to Navy at TI 

DATE: March 15, 2001 

In March 1997, the City and County of San Francisco entered into a "Cooperative 
Agreement" with the Navy to provide certain services to Treasure Island, a military 
base scheduled for closure in accordance with the federal Base Realignment and 
Closure Act ("BRAC"). The Cooperative Agreement was intended to provide a means 
for an orderly transition of operations and maintenance responsibility for, among other 
things, utilities services to the City, pending completion of an economic development 
conveyance to the City. 

Since that time, the Cooperative Agreement has been renewed on October 1 B of 
each year (federal government's fiscal year). We are presently operating under 
"Cooperative Agreement #5". The initial Cooperative Agreement provided 
reimbursement of SFPUC staff time for training in the operations and maintenance of 
the respective utilities systems (water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, electric and gas). 
In addition, the initial Cooperative Agreement provided funding for certain major 
repairs deemed critical to assuring the continued operability of the existing utilities 
systems during the conveyance period. 

Commencing October 1997, the Cooperative Agreement was expanded to include 
billing and collections of fees for utilities services on Treasure Island. Rates for such 
services were established by the Navy (as owner). In addition to revenues charged to 
City and federal tenants, the Navy reimbursed the City for what it deemed to be its 
allocated share of utilities costs, including for shared use areas. All funding provided 
by the Cooperative Agreement is accounted for through the City's annual single audit. 
To the extent that the SFPUC collects more revenues and funds than its actual costs, 
such excess revenues would need to be returned to the Navy. To-date, that has not 
occurred. 

The conveyance of the property to the City is presently expected to occur at the end 
of 2001 depending on the final environmental review process. 

Cc: HH - Sam Larano, Chuck Swanson, Fred Weiner 
Records 



49 



Attachment IV 
Page 1 ot 3 



INTER OFFJCE 



MEMO 



TO: TTDA (S. Proud) 

FROM: SF-PUC-HHWP-TI Utility Operation dZ^gZL 

DATE: March S, 2001 

SUBJECT: Utility Rates 

The Navy originally established the service charge to the various tenants on 
Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island under the base Cooperative Agreement 
in July of 1997. These rates as shown on the attached letter have not been 
change since that rime. 

Our cost of the base commodity has been constant until last summer. In mid- 
2000 the cost of natural gas has increased dramatically. It has grown from about 
$0.30 to over $1.60 per th erm. As a result of this cost increase, a request was 
sent to the Navy in December of 2000 (see attached letter) to revise the rate 
structure to reflect this increase. The Navy addressed this by excluding itself 
from establishing rates. It passed this responsibility to the Caretaker. 

We arc proposing a utility service operation and maintenance charge that consists 
of two parts: base commodity cost and operation and maintenance cost. This 
charge is to be passed to the tenants under existing lease agreements and to the 
two Federal tenants under service contracts. 



FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES CO 

sxet STaeiT, 4th Flooa. San Francisco. Ca 94103 Tel. Uis) 334.3153 . 
I 

50 



M M 1 a S l O N 

Fax (a | 5) 554-2 l e 1 



Pape A of. 'J> 



^SEi'c- 




Water 



Hetck Hetchy 
Watxr & Powxa 

CLEAN WATER 



nLi_acl_BJKnwH.Ua. 

utc« 

. Down NCT H -UMOY 
KTOUC MXICRA- 

iczn-_a__KT 

x/uocLCaox 
MM MOU-Ot CAXM 

5HO.KU-UJI SHATT 

WN P. Mullamz. Jn. 
en ova. MMIMn 



San Francisco public Utilities Commission 

Treasure Island Ututy CrtRATKxa 
1065 1 3™ SlWtJL T . TrcasurC island 
S*« FHANC3C3. CiLIFCAKU. 3*130 



December 7, 2000 

CSO Office - Treasure Island 

Bldgl 

Treasure Island 

San Francisco, CA 94130 

Rc£ Utility Rate Chan g e 

I would like to adjust the utility rare for gas service starting on January 1, 2001 to 
reflect the drastic increase in the cost of the gas commodity. 

The rate structure is: 




Commodity 


Rate for other than 
Federal Customer 


Rate for DOL and 
Coast Guard 


Water 


S5.40 legal 1 S4.S9 kgal 


Electric 


SO. 14275 kwh 1 SO. 12 134 kwh 


Sewer 


S5.75kgal 1 S4.89 ksal 


Gas 


S6.00kcf | SS.10 kef 



I propose that the utility rate structure be: 



Commodity 



Rate for other than 
Federal Customer 



Rate for DOL 



Water 



Electric 



Sewer 
Gas 



S5.40 ksal 



S4.59 ksal 



Rats for Coast 
Guard 



SO. 14275 kwh 



S0.12134kwh 



S4.59 kgal 



S0.12134kwh 



S5.75 kgal 



Actual therm 
charge plus 20% in 
therms 



S4.89 kzal 



Actual therm 
charge plus 17% In 
therm 



S4.R9 ksal 



S5.10kcf 



The commodity cost to me has ranged from a low of SO .3238 per therm in March of 
this year to the latest of S0.65O1. The current rate of S6.00 kef charge to TI/YBI 
customers is approximately 50.60 per therm. The latest industry purchase of gas on 
the open market was most recently double this. I cannot continue to subsidize the gas 
at the current rate structure. 



51 



Attachment IV 
Page 3 of 3 



PPO 




Water 

em HrrcHY 
at * power 
an Water 



. HUCWK.'H. 



a Noxmamot 



isocxrr 
_CaoK 

UJOtCAXN 

CuuaxBmatt 
.Manage* 




San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 

TREASURE IGUUO UTaTTY OPERATTCMS 

J o«5 l S" Street. Treasure icono 

SAM FRANCSC3, OUJ=ORN»AS-*T30 



In order to better reflect the industry billing practice, I propose as shown a pass 
through of the commodity charge plus a TI/YBI transmission and maintenance charge 
of 20% (17% for Federal customers). The Coast Guard would re main the same since 
we have an existing Federal contract in place and the usage is limited to only Coast 
Guard hem sing. 



Thank you, 



Charles H. Swanson 
Site Manager 



52 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 5 - File 01-0355 



Departments: 



Item: 



Location: 



Purpose of Lease: 



Department of Administrative Services, Real Estate 

Division (RED) 
Department of Aging and Adult Services (DAAS) 

Resolution authorizing an amendment to a lease of real 
property at 1650 Mission Street for the Department of 
Aging and Adult Services. 

The proposed lease amendment is for the rental of space 
located on the ground floor, Suite 100, of 1650 Mission 
Street. 

To (a) consolidate the current department staff currently- 
located at both 875 Stevenson Street and 1380 Howard 
Street into a single location at 1650 Mission Street, and (b) 
to move DAAS closer to other social services faculties 
located near the Civic Center. 



Lessor: 
Lessee: 



No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Cost Per Month: 



Annual Cost: 

Annual 

Rent Increases: 



Annual Cost Over 
Current Rent Paid: 



G & I Mission, L.L.C. 

City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through 
the Department of Aging and Adult Services. 

11,046 square feet at a monthly rental rate of $48,823 
(approximately $4.42 per square foot) in Year One of the 
subject lease. 

$585,880 in Year One of the proposed lease. 



Approximately $0.33 per square foot per month, or an 
increase of 7.5 percent for Year Two of the proposed lease, 
increasing by fixed increments for the last three years of 
the proposed five-year lease in accordance with the table 
shown in Comment No. 1. 

$75,580 for the remainder of FY 2000-01 (see Comment No. 

8) 

$241,325 for FY 2001-02 (see Comment No. 7). However, 

as noted in Comment No. 6, including the anticipated rent 

increase at the existing DAAS locations, DAAS would save 

$125,116 in Year Three of the proposed lease, and realize 

savings in each of the following two years. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

53 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Utilities and: 
Janitorial Services: 

Term of Lease: 



Right of Renewal: 
Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Utilities and Janitorial Services will be provided by the 
landlord. 

Retroactive to March 1, 2001 through February 28, 2006, or 
approximately five years (see Comment No. 3). 

None 

For the remainder of FY 2000-2001, incremental rent and 
relocation costs will be paid through a reimbursement from 
Muni (see Comment No. 8). Thereafter, funding for the 
lease would be included in the DAAS annual budget. 

The proposed resolution would authorize a new five-year 
lease amendment which would increase the space leased by 
the City at 1650 Mission Street by 11,046 square feet. 
Currently the City leases 74,476 square feet of space at 
1650 Mission Street (see Comment No. 4). The proposed 
new space would allow DAAS to consolidate the majority of 
its staff into a single location, and would move DAAS closer 
to other social services facilities located near the Civic 
Center, according to Mr. John Clark, Acting Deputy 
Director of DAAS. 

1. According to the proposed lease, the rent payments owed 
by the City would be as follows: 









Approximate 










Rent Per 




Lease 


Annual 


Monthly 


Square Foot / 


Percent 


Year 


Base Rent 


Base Rent 


Month 


Increase 


1 


$585,879.84 


$48,823.32 


$4.42 


-- 


2 


629,622.00 


52,468.50 


4.75 


7.5% 


3 


673,364.16 


56,113.68 


5.08 


6.9% 


4 


706,502.16 


58,875.18 


5.33 


4.9% 


5 


718,431.84 


59,869.32 


5.42 


1.7% 



Mr. Legnitto states that the rent schedule was set to be 
equivalent to an average rental rate of $5.00 per square 
foot per month over the term of the lease because RED 
believes this rate to be equivalent to the fair market rate 
for this property for 2001. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

54 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

According to Mr. Legnitto, the rent of the proposed space at 
the average rate of $5.00 per square foot per month would 
be at or below the aggregate prevailing market rate for the 
term of the contract. To support this conclusion, Mr. 
Legnitto notes that in August of 2000, the State 
Compensation Fund entered into a five-year lease 
agreement for approximately 18,000 square feet at 1650 
Mission Street. The rental rate for that agreement was an 
average rate of $5.00 per square foot per month, according 
to Mr. Legnitto. 

2. According to Mr. Legnitto, DAAS would incur 
approximately $132,000 in costs for improvements to the 
subject space (see Comment No. 8). The proposed 
resolution states: 

" ...Landlord shall perform tenant improvement work 
and City shall reimburse Landlord for such costs, 
subject to City's prior written approval in an amount 
not to exceed City's estimate of $132, 000. " 

According to Mr. Legnitto, while the proposed resolution 
authorizes the City to reimburse the landlord for up to 
$132,000 in tenant improvement work (see Attachment), 
the Department anticipates that the landlord would 
construct improvements which would cost $34,000, with the 
remaining $98,000 in improvements to be performed 
through a City contract, or by DTIS through a Work Order. 
Because the landlord-constructed portion of the 
improvements is not yet finalized, the proposed resolution 
provides authority to reimburse the landlord for up to 
$132,000 in the event that the City requires the landlord to 
complete more improvements than currently planned, 
according to Mr. Legnitto. The table below provides a 
description of the proposed tenant improvements to 1650 
Mission Street: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

55 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Proposed Tenant Improvements / Relocation Expenses • 1650 Mission Street 

RED Work Order (move planning, coordination, etc.) $12,000 

Computer move, server installation, workstation hookups 5,000 

Furniture move 20,000 

Buyout of phone switch, cubicles and wiring from previous tenant. 10,000 

Phone system circuits/software/truncation equipment 36,000 

Phone handsets for LPS staff (not compatible with PAPG) 5,600 

Pacific Bell installation/configuration charges 5,400 
Department of Telecommunications and Information Services (DTIS) 

Work Order for installation and configuration of equipment 4,000 

Addition of partition walls to convert conference rooms into offices 34,000 

TOTAL $132,000 

The Attachment to this report, provided by DAAS, provides 
further details regarding the costs listed above. 

3. According to Mr. Legnitto, the lease commencement 
date retroactive to March 1, 2001 was a negotiated term of 
the proposed agreement and the date of March 1, 2001 is 
included in the proposed lease. According to Mr. Legnitto, 
upon approval of the proposed lease by the Board of 
Supervisors, DAAS would take immediate occupancy of the 
subject space at 1650 Mission Street, and complete their 
relocation over the course of two working days. According 
to Mr. Clark, all planned tenant improvements are 
relatively minor, and would be undertaken after DAAS has 
relocated into the proposed 1650 Mission Street space 
without causing significant disruption to DAAS operations. 
According to Mr. Clark, DAAS' current plan is to suspend 
operations at 5:00 p.m. Wednesday April 5, 2001, relocate 
Thursday April 6 and Friday April 7, and open for normal 
operations at their new location on Monday, April 10. 

The City would also, according to Mr. Legnitto, become 
obligated to pay rent for the subject space beginning March 
1, 2001. If the Board of Supervisors does not approve this 
lease, however, the City would have no obligation to pay 
rent. According to Mr. Legnitto, negotiations over the 
proposed lease were protracted because the City required 
time to find an appropriate City tenant to fill the space that 
would be vacated by DAAS at 875 Stevenson Street. As 
stated previously, DRE now proposes to relocate Muni staff 
to 875 Stevenson Street (see Comment No. 10). In order to 
keep the landlord from seeking alternate tenants, RED felt 
that it was necessary to offer the concession of a lease 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

56 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



commencement date of March 1, 2001. Mr. Legnitto 
reports that, if the Board of Supervisors were to reject the 
commencement date of March 1, 2001, the City and the 
Landlord may not be able to come to an agreement over the 
proposed lease amendment. 

4. According to Mr. Legnitto, the City has leased portions 
of the subject property at 1650 Mission Street since 1996. 
The lease has been amended twice since 1996 to add 
additional space to the existing lease. The subject proposed 
lease would be the third amendment to the City's existing 
lease at 1650 Mission Street. 

In 1996, the City entered into a new lease at 1650 Mission 
Street to provide the Department of Human Services (DHS) 
with 39,109 square feet of office space. This lease was first 
amended in September of 1997 to provide an additional 
18,803 square feet of space at 1650 Mission for the DHS 
and for the Department of Building Inspection (DBI). The 
existing lease was amended a second time in May of 2000 
to provide 16,564 square feet of additional space for both 
DHS and DBI. Currently, the City leases a total of 74,476 
square feet at 1650 Market Street. According to Mr. 
Legnitto, rent currently paid by the City on space at 1650 
Mission Street ranges from $1.35 per square foot per month 
to $4.42 per square foot per month, as shown in the table 
on the following page. In total, if this proposed amendment 
to provide 11,046 square feet of additional space for DAAS 
is approved, the City would be renting 85,522 square feet at 
1650 Mission Street at an average cost per square foot per 
month of approximately $2.36. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

57 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 





Existing and Propose 


d Citv Leased Space at 








1650 Mission Street Since 


June 7 


. 1996 


















Cost 


Original Lease 


Date 

6/7/96 


Department 
DHS 


Floor 
2nd 


Area 
39,109 


Rent per 
Month* 

$52,773 


Annual 

Base 

Rent* 

$633,276 


per 

Sq. 
Ft./ 
Mo.* 

$1.35 


First 
Amendment 


9/22/97 


DHS 
DBI 


3rd 
3rd 


10,896 
7.907 


$16,126 

$11,702 


$193,513 
$140,428 


$1.48 
$1.48 






Amendment Total 




T8.803 


S27.828 


$333.941 


SI .48 






Lease Total 




57,912 


$80,601 


$967,217 


$1.39 


Second 

Amendment 


9/14/00 


DHS 
DHS 


3rd 
2nd 


8,905 
1,944 


$39,360 
$7,290 


$472,321 
$87,480 


S4.42 
S3.75 






DBI 
Amendment Total 


3rd 


5,715 
16.564 


$25,260 
S71.91Q 


$303,124 
S862.925 


S4.42 


S4.34 






Lease Total 




74,476 


5152,511 


$1,830,142 


$2.05 


Proposed 

Third 

Amendment 


3/1/01 


DAAS 


1st 


n 046 


S48.823 


-S58S.88Q 


J&12 






Lease Total 




85,522 


$201,334 


$2,416,022 


$2.36 



*Rental rates are for the current contract year, as of the writing of this report 



5. According to Mr. Clark, the primary reason for the 
proposed lease is that the Department would be able to 
consolidate several functions into one location at 1650 
Mission Street. According to Mr. Clark, there are two 
divisions within DAAS that would relocate to 1650 Mission 
Street under the proposed lease. In total, present annual 
rent for these two locations is $359,135 ($289,135 plus 
$70,000). The first of these divisions, the Public 
Administrator-Public Guardian, which consists of 50 
employees, would vacate approximately 11,928 square feet 
at 875 Stevenson Street for which DAAS now pays rent of 
approximately $24,095 per month and approximately 
$289,135 annually to move to the first floor of 1650 Mission 
Street. According to Mr. Clark, Muni would then occupy 
the vacated space at 875 Stevenson Street (see Comment 
No. 10). The second division to relocate would be the 
Mental Health Conservator, which consists of 20 
employees. The Mental Health Conservator would relocate 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

58 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



to the first floor of the subject space at 1650 Mission Street, 
vacating approximately 2,300 square feet of space at 1380 
Howard Street for which they now pay rent of $5,833 per 
month and $70,000 annually 1 . According to Mr. Clark, the 
Department of Public Health would assume occupancy 
under the current City lease at 1380 Howard Street (see 
Comment No. 11). 

Additionally, according to Mr. Clark, two current divisions 
of the Department of Human Services, Adult Protective 
Services (APS) and In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) 
are scheduled to become part of DAAS in FY 2001-02 and 
FY 2002-03, respectively. Mr. Clark states that, since these 
two divisions currently employ 125 staff at 1650 Mission 
Street in space now leased by the Department of Human 
Services, the subject proposed lease space is an ideal 
location for long-term consolidation of the DAAS. 

6. According to Mr. Legnitto, the rent at 1380 Howard 
Street and 875 Stevenson Street, the two buildings 
currently occupied by DAAS, are scheduled to increase to 
the prevailing market rent within the next 27 months 2 . 
According to Mr. Legnitto, if DAAS were to stay in its 
current locations, beginning November 1, 2002, the rent at 
875 Stevenson Street will increase from the current rate of 
$2.02 per square foot per month, or approximately $289,135 
annually (11,928 square feet x $2.02 per square foot per 
month x 12 months), to $5.00 per square foot per month, or 
approximately $715,680 annually (11,928 square feet x 
$5.00 per square foot per month x 12 months). Further, 
Mr. Legnitto states that beginning July 1, 2003, the rent at 
1380 Howard Street will increase from the current rate of 
approximately $2.54 per square foot per month, or 
approximately $70,000 annually (2,300 square feet x 
approximately $2.54 per square foot per month x 12 
months), to an estimated $3.00 per square foot per month, 
or approximately $82,800 annually (2,300 square feet x 
$3.00 per square foot per month x 12 months). Therefore, 
starting in FY 2003-04, DAAS rent would total 
approximately $798,480 annually ($715,680 plus $82,800) 
if it were to remain in its current leased space locations. 



1 Rent at 1380 Howard Street includes custodial services, limited data -processing support 
services, utilities, and parking. 

2 According to Mr. Legnitto, the rent at 1380 Howard Street would be adjusted to 95% of fair 
market, not to exceed $3.00 per square foot per month.. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

59 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



By contrast, the proposed lease at 1650 Mission Street 
would require annual rent of $673,364 in Year Three of the 
proposed lease, or $125,116 less than the projected FY 
2003-04 rent of $798,480 for DAAS' current leased space. 

7. According to Mr. Clark, DAAS currently has budgeted a 
total of approximately $359,000 in rent payments for Fiscal 
Year 2000-2001 for the space it currently occupies. Under 
the proposed lease, the Department would pay a total of 
$600,460 rent for FY 2001-02 (Lease Year 1 rent of 
$48,823.32 monthly for eight months plus Lease Year 2 
rent of $52,468.50 monthly for four months). This would 
represent a $241,325 or a 67.2 percent increase over the 
DAAS rent of $359,135 in FY 2000-2001. However, as 
previously noted in Comment No. 6, including the 
anticipated rent increases at their existing locations, DAAS 
would save $125,116 annually beginning in Year Three of 
the proposed lease, according to Mr. Legnitto. 

8. According to Mr. Clark, improvements and relocation 
costs, which are detailed in the Attachment to this report, 
would total $132,000. Additionally, there would exist a 
rent differential of approximately $75,580 3 , which would 
bring DAAS' total relocation and incremental rent costs for 
FY 2000-01 to $207,580. According to Mr. Clark, in 
exchange for its current space at 875 Stevenson Street and 
for the modular furniture and equipment located at that 
site, Muni would make a one-time payment of $197,000. 
Muni's payment would cover approximately 95 percent of 
DAAS' moving costs, leaving approximately $10,580 for the 
Department to absorb. According to Mr. Clark, DAAS will 
pay for the remaining $10,580 through salary savings that 
the Department would achieve. 

9. At its current locations at 875 Stevenson Street and 
1380 Howard Street the Department averages 115 square 
feet per employee (approximately 2,300 square feet divided 
by 20 staff) and 239 square feet per employee 
(approximately 11,928 square feet divided by 50 staff), 
respectivily. This averages approximately 203 square feet 
per employee over the two locations (approximately 14,228 
square feet divided by 70 staff). The subject proposed lease 



3 $195,292 (4 x $48,823) in rent payments under the new lease for the four-month period 
from March 1, 2001 through June 30 2001, less $119,712 in rent payments at the current rate 
for the same period (4 x $24,095, plus 4 x $5,833). 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

60 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



space would provide approximately 158 square feet per 
employee (11,046 square feet divided by 70 employees) at 
the new location. Mr. Legnitto notes that, with the 
proposed move, DAAS would reduce the average number of 
square feet per employee by 45 square feet (203 less 158), 
and reduce its total space by 3,182 square feet (14,228 less 
11,046). 

10. According to Mr. Jim Nielsen of Muni, Muni would 
relocate 62 staff persons from two separate locations into 
the 11,928 square foot space at 875 Stevenson Street that 
would be vacated by DAAS. This would provide Muni with 
approximately 192 square feet per employee at the 875 
Stevenson Street location. As noted above, Muni would 
vacate space at two locations: (1) 46 staff persons would 
vacate approximately 8,000 square feet of space at 425 
Mason Street, where Muni currently has approximately 
174 square feet per employee, and (2) 16 staff persons 
would vacate approximately 2,000 square feet of space at 
949 Presidio, where Muni currently averages 
approximately 125 square feet per employee. Muni 
currently averages approximately 161 square feet per 
employee over the two locations (10,000 square feet divided 
by 62 employees). 

According to Mr. Nielsen, the space vacated by Muni at 949 
Presidio would be filled by other Muni personnel at that 
location. Specifically, 10 Muni Information Services staff 
that are currently located in a 500 square foot space at 949 
Presidio (which provides approximately 50 square feet per 
employee) would move into the 2,000 square foot space 
(which would then provide approximately 200 square feet 
per employee) that would be vacated by the Muni personnel 
relocating to 875 Stevenson Street. The 500 square foot 
space vacated by the Muni Information Technology staff 
would be used to accommodate an as yet undetermined 
number of new Muni Safety Training and Security 
personnel, according to Mr. Nielsen. 

According to Mr. Carlos Jacobo of zhe PUC, the space 
vacated by Muni at 425 Mason Street would be occupied by 
PUC personnel currently at that location. According to Mr. 
Jacobo, 95 PUC Customer Services Bureau and 
Information Technology Services Bureau staff are currently 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

61 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



located in 20.000 4 square feet of space at 425 Mason Street, 
which currently provides approximately 211 square feet per 
employee. As a result of the proposed resolution, the PUC 
would expand into the 8,000 square foot space vacated by 
Muni. According to Mr. Jacobo, this extra space would 
allow the PUC to fill 17 vacant positions at 425 Mason 
Street. The expanded space would then provide 
approximately 250 square feet per employee (28,000 square 
feet divided by 112 employees). Mr. Jacobo states that the 
PUC has been unable to fill vacant positions which would 
be located at 425 Mason Street because there is currently 
insufficient space at that location. According to Mr. Jacobo, 
the additional 8,000 square feet that would be vacated by 
Muni would allow the PUC to fill all its current vacancies 
in its Customer Services and Information Technology 
Services Bureaus. According to Mr. Jacobo, the additional 
space would also allow the PUC to add additional needed 
data processing equipment for the Information Technology 
Services Bureau. 

11. According to Ms. Judy Schutzman of DPH, the 2,300 
square feet of space at 1380 Howard Street that would be 
vacated by DAAS would be occupied by DPH staff already 
at that location in order to alleviate overcrowding. Ms. 
Schutzman states that, while 310 DPH staff currently 
occupy approximately 70,000 square feet at 1380 Howard 
Street, the average of 226 square feet per employee is not 
representative of the state of overcrowding that currently 
exists at that location. Ms. Schutzman notes that this 
approximately 70,000 square feet of space includes common 
areas and space occupied by machinery at the DPH 
computing center at that location. According to Ms. 
Schutzman, DPH currently utilizes every desk space 
available at 1380 Howard, and, for the last two years, has 
had a m inim um of ten of its employees using desks that 
have been placed in hallways for lack of space. The space 
vacated by DAAS would reduce the number of employees at 
1380 Howard Street from 310 to 290, and increase the 
average square feet per employee from 226 to 241 (70,000 
square feet divided by 290 employees). 



4 Including common areas and space occupied solely by computer and data processing 
equipment. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
62 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

63 



City and County of San Francisco 

Mayor Willie L. Brown, Jr. 




Attachment 
Page 1 of 2 

DEPARTMENT OF AGING AND ADULT SERVICES 

Dr. Sandra Y. Nathan, Executive Director 



Commission on the Aging 
Mental Health Conservator 

Public Administrator-Public Guardian 



JOHN D.R. CLARK 

Deputy Executive Director 

Direct Dial: (415) 554-5023 

E-Mail: john_dark@ci.sf.ca.us 



MEMORANDUM 

TO: DALEY DUNHAM 

FROM: JOHN CLARK 

DATE: MARCH 13, 2001 

RE: MOVE TO 1650 MISSION 



The Department of Real Estate and I have arrived at estimated figures for the cost of moving the 
Public Administrator-Public Guardian Division and the Mental Health Conservator Division 
from their present locations to 1650 Mission. 



1650 Mission Move 












$12,000 




Real Estate Dept. Work Order 
(Move planning/Coordination) 






$5,000 




Computer move, server 
installation, workstation hookups 






$20,000 




Furniture move 






$10,000 




Buyout of CSAA phone switch, 
cubicles and wiring 






$36,000 




Phone system 
circuits/software/truncation 






$5,600 




Phone handsets for LPS staff 

(theirs not compatible with 

PAPG) 






$5,400 




Pacific Bell 
installation/configuration charges 






$4,000 




DTIS Work Order 






$34,000 




Tenant improvements 
at 1650 Mission 


(adding partition walls to convert 
conference rooms into offices) 


TOTAL 


$132,000 









875 Stevenson Street, Suite 260, San Francisco, CA 94103 
Principal Number (41 5) 554-5055 Fax Number (41 5) 554-5026 



Attachment 
Fage Z ot 2 

In addition to this 5132,000 in move-related costs, there will be an estimated 575,580 in 
increased rent at 1650 Mission for the remainder of this FY. 

To pay for the move, the department proposes to use the payment to be made by MUNI for use 
of the PAPG space at 875 Stevenson St. MUNI has agreed to pay 5197,000, for which it will 
receive: 

1. Modular furniture (cubicles) new in 1999 - approximately 40 work stations 
(1999 original cost=S 114,000) 

2. Value of buildout - configuration of space into 15 private offices and shared work areas 
(1999 original cost=S35 1,000) 

3. DTIS wiring (all Category-5) 
(1999 original cost=S55,000) 

Total 1999 value = 5520,000 

By reusing the space at 875 Stevenson for a similar number of employees requiring an 
essentially similar configuration, MUNI will be able to avoid a potential buildout and furniture 
cost of 5500,000 - so the 5197,000 figure benefits both departments. 

The total move-related cost for DAAS will be 5132,000+575,580=5207,580. Subtracting the 
MUNI payment leaves 510,580. We will be able to absorb that cost by not filling two 
anticipated retirements in classification 2932 and classification 1458. I estimate these savings as 
follows: 

1458: 6 pay periods x 52,151 b/w=S12,906 
2932: 6 pay periods x 52,654 b/w=S 15,924 
Subtotal 528,830 

Less accumulated vacation, etc. - 9,610 
Net available: 519,220 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 6 - File 01-0268 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Hearing to consider the release of reserved funds for the 
DPW in the amount of $504,225 to fund overtime 
expenditures and $476,000 for 60 new General Laborer 
positions in the Bureau of Street Environmental Services, for 
a total release of reserves of $980,225. 

$980,225 ($504,225 for overtime expenditures plus $476,000 
for the General Laborer expenditures) 



Source of Funds: DPW Request for Release of Overtime Reserve for FY 



2000-2001 

General Fund 

Interdepartmental Work Order 
Overhead 
Gas Tax 
Road Fund 

Subtotal 

General Laborers FY 2000-2001 

General Fund Reserve 
Subtotal 



$60,853 

265,232 

30,023 

133,267 

14.850 

$504,225 



$476.000 
$476.000 



Total Source of Funds 



$980,225 



Description: Overtime ($504.225) 

The DPW FY 2000-2001 budget included total overtime 
expenditures of approximately $1,528,359, of which $543,659 
or 35.6 percent was reserved, leaving $984,700 available for 
expenditure. Although this request is to release $504,225 
from reserve, the final appropriation ordinance contained a 
reserve of $543,659. 

The table below provides a summary of overtime 
expenditures to date and projected overtime expenditures for 
FY 2000-2001, based on the DPWs records, which have been 
reviewed and verified by the Controller's Office. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

66 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 




Overtime Expenditures 



FY 2000-2001 
Budget 



Overtime 



SI. 528. 359 



Actual 

Expenditures 

Through Pay 

Period Ending 

2/2/2001 



947,572 



Projected 
Expenditures 
Through June 

30, 2001 * 



$1,589,476 



Projected 
Surplus (Defit. 



$(61,1 \ 



*Projection based on spending at the level of the pay period ending February 2, 2001 for the remainder of * 
Fiscal Year. 



As summarized in the table above, the DPWs latest 
projection report for overtime expenditures shows that: 

• As of the pay period ending February 2, 2001, the DPW 
has incurred total overtime expenditures of 5947,572. 

• Through February 2, 2001 (or 15.5 of 26.0 pay periods in 
FY 2000-2001) the DPW has expended approximately 62 
percent of its total overtime appropriation of $1,528,359 and 
approximately 96.2 percent of its available, unreserved 
overtime funding of $984,700. 

• Based on overtime expenditures incurred during the pay 
period ending February 2, 2001, DPW will expend a total of 
$1,589,476 on overtime which is approximately $61,117 more 
than the Department's total FY 2000-2001 overtime 
appropriation. The Budget Analyst concurs with DPWs 
projections. 

Ms. Olson estimates that the projected overtime deficit of 
$61,117 will be offset with DPW salary savings, and will 
therefore not require a supplemental appropriation request. 
Attachment I provided by DPW further documents the 
projected total overtime expenditures of $1,589,476. 

General Laborers ($476.000) 

In the FY 2000-2001 DPW budget, as finally approved by the 
Board of Supervisors, funding was approved for 60 new 
permanent 7514 General Laborer positions for the Bureau of 
Street Environmental Services (see Comment 1). During the 
budget review, the Finance and Labor Committee placed 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

67 






Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

$476,000 on reserve or approximately 25 percent of the 
$1,934,454 for nine months of salaries for the 60 new General 
Laborer positions, pending DPWs provision of additional 
details for increasing the opportunities for General 
Assistance recipients to fill the General Laborer positions. 
Attachment II, provided by Ms. Olson, explains that the 
DPW retained 60 as-Needed General Laborers which they 
had hired during the 2000 dry tourist season (May through 
August) for the 60 subject General Laborer positions and 
made other positions within the DPW available to General 
Assistance recipients. 

Ms. Olson states that the DPW budgeted $1,934,954 for the 
60 General Laborer positions, based on fining the positions 
for nine months of the year. According to Ms. Olson, the 
DPW filled the subject 60 General Laborer positions on a 
temporary basis in September of 2000 because the 
Department of Human Resources has not completed a 
General Laborer permanent list (see page 2 of Attachment II 
provided by DPW). Ms. Olson advises that the requested 
release of reserved funds for the 60 General Laborers in the 
amount of $476,000 would be used to fund salaries for these 
positions from April 1, 2001 through June 30, 2001. 

Comments: 1. Prior to the addition of 60 new General Laborer positions, 

DPW had 90 General Laborer positions for its Manual Street 
Cleaning Program. According to Ms. Olson, with the 60 new 
General Laborers, the DPW was able to increase the Manual 
Street Cleaning staff in all 11 districts for all three work 
shifts. The General Laborers are deployed to clean City 
streets and remove litter in the City's 11 districts, which 
were organized around the new district election boundaries. 
The 11 street cleaning districts replace the 4 districts that 
were in operation for street cleaning and litter removal 
purposes during the last several years. Attachment III 
provided by Ms. Olson shows the deployment of the 150 
General Laborers by the 11 street cleaning districts, 
including the new 60 positions. 

2. As previously noted, the total amount reserved for 
overtime in the DPW FY 2000-2001 budget was $543,659 or 
$39,434 more than this subject request of $504,225. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

68 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

3. Based on discussions with Ms. Olson and as shown in 
Attachment II, DPW projects a net General Fund surplus in 
its Bureau of Street Environmental Services of $89,017. 
Therefore, the request of $476,000 for General Laborers in 
the Bureau of Street Environmental Services should be 
reduced by $89,017 to $386,983. 

4. Included in this request of $504,225 for Overtime is 
$125,000 to pay DPW for Overtime incurred to transport 
ballots during the November 2000 election. This $125,000 
was also requested under File 01-0249, in a supplemental 
appropriation ordinance for the Department of Elections. 
That ordinance has been continued by the Finance 
Committee to the Call of the Chair. The Budget Analyst has 
recommended that the $125,000 in File 01-0249 be deleted. 

Recommendations: 1. Approve the requested release of reserved funds of 
$504,225 for Overtime and continue to reserve $39,434 of the 
total amount previously reserved of $543,659 in accordance 
with Comment No. 2 above. 

2. Approve the requested release of reserved funds for 
General Laborers of $386,983 or $89,017 less than the 
request of $476,000 and continue to reserve $89,017 of 
General Fund monies in the DPW Bureau of Street 
Environmental Services in accordance with Comment No. 3 
above. 

3. In total these recommendations would result in savings of 
$128,451 ($39,434 plus $89,017). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

69 



Attachment I 















(S| 


,- 


rv 


(M 


(71 


en 


m 


Ul 


« 





cn 


cn o to 


r- 


ts, 


CM CO 


w ro ro CM 





"to" 


~ — 


— ---— 












■D 






CO 


CO 


CS 














CO 


co ■»» *r 




O 


CO «■ 


^ co o *- 


o 


r- 
















O 


\ 




°l 


h- 










r-_ 


eo 


CO 


eo 




CD 




r- u> 




o 




IO 
















rj 




co" 








n 




h* 


CO 




co eo •*- 






ro t- 


r- t- ^- cm 


CM 


CO 
















E 






r-- 




■*r 










o 




















^r 














re 


*7 


10 




cs 


IB 


CO 






*" 






' 




T " 












o 












LU 


C2 




















































o5 




rs 


CM 


CO 


en 


N 


CM 


N 


N 


< 


< 


< 


< < < 


< 


< 


< < 


< < < < 


< 


< 


< 


N 












£ 


? 


eo 


■C 


f^_ 


s 


s 


S 


5 


Z 


Z 


Z 


z z z 


Z 


z 


Z Z 


z z z z 


z 


Z 


z 


O 




















eo" 


^" 




V 




























r*" 

r» 










o 
r- 


■ 


r 


c~ 


r~ 


CO 


00 


N 


^ 


n 


n 


































o 


cm" 


CO 




nT 


CO 


eo" 








































CO 








































■"■ 
















j; 


jO 


S* 5? 


55 S« 


^ vg 


< 


< 


< 


< < < 


< 


< 


< < 


< < < < 


< 


< 


< 


< 












z 




Sr 




CO h~ 




M M 


Z 


z 


z 


z z z 


z 


z 


Z z 


z z z z 


z 


z 


z 


Z 






o 












CM CO 


































o 






LU 

o 




co 


Ul' 


d tr 


(O to 


^ ^3* 






























CM 




















































cr 










































o 






LU 










































o 
o 

CM 
LU 


a 
o 

IN 


a 

LU 
1- 

o 


0. 






CO 










ID 


CO 


cn 




ro 


co ro to 


T 




e cm 


o co o ■*- 


o 












5E 


LU 




L0 






o 










ro 


CD 




CO CO o 


CM 


r* 


co to 


to t- >er 














§ 




^ 


CO 




o 






o_ 


o_ 


r* 




V 










O) s o 






CO 


^cr 






o 




V 


oo" 


<i 


00* 










to 


O 


r- 


a: id r 


O 




•w- CO 


t- rr CM 






T 








is 

Is 

CO o 


c- 






en 






N 




to 


CO 




a> 




eo o 


to 


r^ 




CM 














CO 

LU 

Z 
3 

~3 


LU 
"I 
O 

B 

c 


LU 
> 

o 










rs 


■V 


^ 












CM 
















"" 






3 

cr. 


Q 






O 




■^ 


o> 


N 


h- 






< 


< 


< 


< < < 


< 


< 


< < 


< < < < 


< 


< 


< 


to 






LU 
1- 

o 


00 




3» 


E 


s 


1^ 


N 


CN 


CN 


CN 


z 


Z 


Z 


z z z 


Z 


z 


z z 


z z z z 


Z 


z 


z 


r» 






LU 


X 


LU 






o 






n 




CO~ 


co" 






























-J 

o 

a: 






■** 


CD 


r~ 


o 


a 


O 


K 


h- 






























LU 


E 






r»j 


■cr 




r-_ 


is^ 


■^ 


^r_ 
































o 


< 

-j 




Cm" 


n 




































to" 






D. 




a: 

a. 


< 

CO 




























*!n* 










































* 






















1- 




s^ 


j» 


2? 5? 


^ so 


^o ^ 


< 


< 


< 


< < < 


< 


< 


< < 


< < < < 


< 


< 


< 


< 












Z 




T 


r-- 


CO 1— 




n n 


z 


z 


Z 


z z z 


z 


Z 


z z 


z z z z 


z 


z 


z 


Z 












LU 








CM ro 








































O 

cr 




id 


ui 


d *f 


tO CD 


^ ^ 






























o 

o 

CM 


o 




LU 
0. 


























































o 


o 


_i 


LU 






■f 


ro 




1^. 


h. 




co 


eo 


CM 


cn 


ffl n s 


o 


00 


ro to 


o to co r^ 


o 


*r 


CO 








cn 


< 


E 










M 






r- 


r* 


r- 


o 




CO CM -r- 




■cr 


ro O 


cn o *• 




co 










o 




3 








■cr 








W 


rt 


cn 


o 


T 


eo to co 






r* co^ 


o eo^ cm_ 




co_ 










o 

CM 


CM 


p 




*» 


co" 






o" 


O 


nt 


us* 


cn 


CO 


T 


^ r- r- 






r»" 


ro cm" i-" 




to" 










> 


CJ 


cr 




r- 










00 








f- 




m cm 


ro 


o 










co 


^ 






LU 


< 


LU 

> 






*" 




*" 


fN 


IN 








r " 




"*" 




* 












o> 






r- 


< 




O 
















































< 


3 




















































a 


Of 


















































CO fc 


6 

i- 

< 

LU 


CD 


_l 


;— 




fsl 


CO 


n 


r) 


"• 


^ 


n 


ro 


< 


< 


< 


< < < 


< 


< 


< < 


< < < < 


< 


< 


< 


o 




*£ 
o £ 

5 K 


LL 

3 


< 

3 
H 


00 

LU 




co" 


to 
c->" 


CO 


00 


rr 


^ 


CD 


CO 


Z 


Z 


z 


z z z 


Z 


Z 


z z 


z z z z 


z 


Z 


z 


00 

CO 




EC 

I 


u 
< 


< 




ro 

CO 


CM 


CO 
CO 


^ 

•» 


n* 


•cr" 


CO 
CO 


S 




























LU 


> 




—1 
< 




















































00 














































-1 K 


















































m k 








































u. _ 
O o 








1- 




j; 


5^ 


o^ S? 


5$ S? 


S? 5? 


< 


< 


< 


< < < 


< 


< 


< < 


< < < < 


< 


< 


< 


< 










z 










^ <cr 




z 


z 


z 


z z z 


z 


Z 


z z 


z z z z 


z 


Z 


z 


Z 










LU 
U 

K 

LU 




CM 




n ro 

O CM 




en o> 
(N CN 




























1- CM 














































2 cm" 








a. 








































£ " 
















































s £ 


■^ 




D 


LU 




,- 


CO 


o 


f^ 


N 


tN 


O 





•» 


h- 


fS, 


O ro o 


f^ 


ro 


CM o 


w- cn ro ro 


o 


■ 


^. 


CD 




H < 


o 




LU 

r- 


s 




■c 




o 




o 


O 






CO 




o 










^ IO ^ 10 


o 


CO 


N 


to 




VC => 


o 






BO 


r-_ 








CO 


IO 








n 




o_ 


to 






o 






n 




< £ 


CM 




LU 


1— 




IO 


CO~ 


* 


r*T 




en 


V 


* 


Tf 




cn 


m ro 


K 




*f *» 


N n to v 




N. 




co" 








a 


cr 




HI 


CM 




00 








<« 




co 


CO 






cn 




TT 






o 






o 




LU 












n 


n 








CM 








r« 
















LU S 

a £ 


o 
o 
CM 




Q 
■ 


> 

o 










































*"" 




o 






















































CO 

< 


Ji- 
ll 




a 


~ 




■ 


„ 


CD 


^ 


CD 


SB 


CN 


N 


< 


< 


< 


< < < 


< 

Z 


< 


< < 


< < < < 


< 


< 


< 


m 


« 






LU 


00 




CO 
CM 


o_ 


» 


s 


o^ 


O 


o_ 


o_ 


z 


Z 


Z 


z z z 


Z 


z z 


z z z z 


Z 


Z 


z 


o 








LU 


LU 








CD 




































o 








a 

3 






■cr 








































n. 








cr 
< 

-I 




in" 


CM 


*l 


CO 


CO 


CO* 


^ 


* 
























CO 


E 

CJ 

r- 








gg 


< 




















































00 












































C 
















































































T3 








































3 
























































































a 






















_l 
























c 






















< 














































1- 














































z 














































LU 


































o 

z 
3 

u. 






-I 


-1 


-J 












_l 










-J 


















< 


< 


< 


K 










< 


to 

a 
< 

LU 
- 

cr 

LU 








< 


< 

t- 

o 

D 

Z 
< 
















r- 

o 


O 2 


o 


< 

0- 










1- 

o 








o 












-1 

< 

LT 

LU 
Z 


CT 


00 




CO u_ 

S 9 


a 

(0 

DC 


LU 

□ 

LU 


< 


cr 


LU 


00 K 5 


■ 
3 

5 «° 


< cr 


lu 00 cr E 


5 


CD 

3 

z m 












LU 


CO 


LU 


(/> < 


UJ O 


CO 


5 


o 


□ 


o 


LU 00 O 




> 


o m 


O LU 00 O 


00 


LU 


cr 












B 


a 


00 


CD O 


v) ac 


to 


a 


CE 


C2 


oo oo a 


=3 


c 


~ m 


cs oo co a 


■ 


o 


o 





70 



Attachment II 
Pai?e I ot 



City and County of San Francisco 





Willie Lewis Brown, Jr., Mayor 
Edwin M. Lee, Director 



Phone: (415)554-<l 

Fax:(415)554-(| 

TDD:(415)554-J 

http://www.sfdpw. i 



Department of Public W g 

Office of the Dirt i 

City Hall, Room | 

1 Dr. Carlton B. GoodlettP j 

San Francisco, CA 94102-* | 



March 14, 2001 

Maureen Singleton 
Budget Analyst's Office 
1390 Market Street, Room 1025 
San Francisco, CA 94102 



Subject: 



DPW's Release of Reserves 



Dear Ms. Singleton: 

You requested a letter addressing the following areas in our release of reserve request 
pending before the Finance Committee: 

DPW's Training and Transitional Employment Opportunities for General 
Assistance Welfare Recipients 

In the FY 00/01 budget, the Department of Public Works (DPW) received funding for 60 
(45 FTE) additional General Laborer positions. During its review of DPW's budget, the 
Board of Supervisors placed S476.000 or 25 percent of the salaries for the 60 new 
General Laborer positions on reserve pending an agreement between the Department and 
the President of the Board on methods for increasing opportunities for welfare and 
general assistance recipients to pursue employment opportunities with the Department. 

The Department met with representatives of the Board President's staff in July, August 
and again in January to review the current status of our programs, staffing, and to 
establish steps to address the Supervisor's concerns. 

DPW hires approximately 14 FTE General Laborers and 2.0 FTE Gardeners annually on 
an as-needed basis for various assignments such as backfilling street cleaning 
assignments and to provide supplemental cleaning and landscaping during the dry tourist 
season. To recruit these as-needed General Laborers and Gardeners, the Department will 
work with a number of nonprofit agencies and community based organizations. DPW 
will also utilize these organizations to recruit candidates for our training programs. 
Working for the Department in a temporary or training capacity will provide individuals 
with an orientation to the job skills and requirements that will benefit them when 
competing for permanent positions through the Civil Service exam process. We have 
identified the following organizations for these outreach efforts: Mission Hiring Hall, 

•IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF UFE IN SAN FRANCISCO' We are dedicated individuals committed to teamwork, 
customer service and continuous improvement in partnership with the community. 
Customer Service Teamwork Continuous Improvement 

71 



Attachment II 
Jfa.qe Z ot 8 

March 14, 2001 

Page 2 

POWER, the San Francisco League of Urban Gardeners, the Chinatown Community 
Development Center, the Garden Project/Tree Corps, and the Southeast Community 
Center. The Department is currently in the process of recruiting candidates for temporary 
Gardening and General Laborer positions and will be contacting these nonprofit agencies 
for lists of potential candidates. 

The Department will also notify these same organizations when the City advertises for 
permanent Civil Service gardening or general laborer examinations. Additionally, the 
Department will maintain a database of individuals who have worked for the Department 
in a temporary capacity and will notify them directly of upcoming permanent Civil 
Service examinations. 

Projected Salary Savings atDPW's Bureau of Street Environmental 
Services (SES) and Hiring General Laborers 

As previously described, SES hires approximately 16 FTE General Laborers and 
Gardeners on an as-needed basis annually for additional manual streets cleaning services 
during the dry tourist season (May through August) which is approximately 35 positions. 
If we have additional funding such as salary savings or work-orders at SES we will hire 
additional (beyond the 35 positions) as-needed General Laborers during that season. At 
the beginning of May 2000, we had 65 General Laborers working at SES on an as-needed 
basis providing additional manual streets cleaning services. After the Board of 
Supervisors approved the 60 General Laborer positions in DPW's FY 2000-01 budget, 
instead of letting 60 of those General Laborers go at the end of the dry season as we 
normally would, we kept them on. We have been unable to put them into permanent 
positions because the Department of Human Services has not completed a General 
Laborer permanent list. However, we are covering their salaries through the permanent 
salaries approved by the Board of Supervisors. 

Our straight- line projections indicate that we will end the year with a $1,278,762 surplus 
in SES's General Fund and Gas Tax salary and mandatory fringe benefit (MFB) budgets 
after covering SES's projected overtime over-expenditure of $270,813'. Some of that 
surplus is due to the General Laborer positions and some of it is due to our inability to fill 
other positions, such as Gardeners and Environmental Control Officers, in a more timely 
manner because of pending permanent lists from DHR. Attached is a list of SES's vacant 
positions, expected hire dates, and the total estimated salary cost through the end of FY 
2000-01. As you can see, we expect to incur $473,098 in salary and MFBs after filling 
these positions. Thus, we expect to have $805,664 in salary and MFB savings at SES by 
the end of FY 2000-01 ($1,278,762 projected surplus minus $473,098 in expected salary 
and MFB expenditures). 



1 $468,634 in General Fund savings and $810,128 in Gas Tax savings for a total of $1,278,762 includes 
Permanent salaries, temporary salaries and mandatory fringe benefits at 24%. 



2 
72 



Attachment II 

Page 3 of 8 
March 14, 2001 

Page 3 



Unfortunately, we are also projecting SES to over-expend its fuel budget by $151,647 
and its vehicle maintenance budget by $268,000 for a total of $419,647 in projected over- 
expenditures (see attached email from Jim Johnson of Central Shops). We plan to use 
some of SES 's salary and MFB savings towards these overages. After subtracting this 
$419,647 from the $805,664 in savings, there is a $386,017 projected surplus. 

Finally, because we project these additional salary savings this year, we are planning to 
hire 30 as-needed General Laborers from April 1, 2001 through June 30, 2001 to provide 
additional manual street cleaning and landscape/median island maintenance services 
during the beginning of the dry tourist season. These additional staff will cost 
approximately $297,000 in salaries and fringe benefits. Consistent with our agreement 
with the President of the Board of Supervisors, we are recruiting from the Garden 
Project/Tree Corps and SLUG to fill these 30 as-needed positions. 

Thus, we expect to have approximately $89,017 in salary savings at the end of FY 2000- 
01. We expect all of these savings to accrue to the General Fund (see attached summary 
of Uses of Projected Salary Savings). 

DPW's Projected Deficits 

Bureau of Building Repair and Bureau of Street and Sewer Repair 

While a straight-line projection for the Bureau of Building Repair (BBR) and the Bureau 
of Street and Sewer Repair (SSR) indicates deficits of $173,332 at BBR and $3,735 in 
their General Fund and Gas Tax budgets, we expect both of these bureaus to end the 
fiscal year within their approved budgets. 

BBR is like the City's in-house contractor. They have stationary engineers, plumbers, 
sheet metal workers, painters and carpenters who do projects for many City departments. 
They move staff as needed to the various projects and therefore funding sources 
throughout the year. Thus, BBR's bi-weekly labor expenditures against the General Fund 
vary throughout the year. Some months it appears that BBR is running a surplus and 
other months a deficit. However, in the past six years since I've been here, they have 
always ended the year within budget. 

SSR also moves its staff between street repair (potholes and patching), street repaving 
and sewer repair projects and therefore its funding sources depending on the weather. 
Similar to BBR, it is difficult to do a straight-line projection on SSR's salaries. We 
expect SSR to also end the year within budget. 



3 
73 



Attachment II 

March 14, 2001 P 

Page 4 



Bureau of Construction Management fBCMD and Bureau of Street Use and 
Mapping CBSM) - Interdepartmental Budgets 

We are projecting BCM to over-expend its overtime budget in its interdepartmental 
budget by $51,346 and BSM to over-expend its overtime budget by $33,827. Both of 
these projected over-expenditures are related to street construction projects implemented 
during the nights and week-ends. 

The Street Construction Coordination Center (SCCC) is budgeted in BSM's 
Interdepartmental budget. Most of BSM's overtime expenditures have occurred in the 
SCCC. The SCCC inspects all construction work (both resurfacing and utility work) in 
the City's streets. When that street construction work occurs during the nights and 
weekends City staff use overtime to provide inspection services. We have been working 
with contractors and City agencies to implement as much street related construction work 
as possible during the nights and weekends to reduce its effects on traffic flow. All of 
these additional overtime expenditures are covered by Excavation Fees collected by 
BSM. 

For DPW sponsored street resurfacing projects, BCM is responsible for inspecting the 
construction. As discussed above, we have been scheduling much of that work during the 
nights and week-ends. BCM's inspectors therefore must work nights and week-ends to 
inspect that work on overtime. All of these costs are covered through the grants funding 
the street resurfacing projects. 

If you have any questions about this letter, please call me at 554-4830. 

Sincerely, 



Tina Olson 

Manager, Finance and Budget 



Cc: Ed Lee 

Mohammad Nuru 
John Cone 
Bob Beck 
Barbara Moy 
Don Eng 



03/14/2681 18:84 



415-554-7886 



DPW OFFMA 



Attachment II 
Page b of 8 



Bureau of Street Environmental Services 
Vacancies and Hire Dates by Fund 



Class 


Description 


Annual 
Salary 

Cost* 


Date Filled/ 
To Be Filled 


Projected 

Salary Cost 

General Fund 


Projected 

Salary Cost 

Gas Tax 


Total 

Projected 

Cost 


1704 


Commun. Dispatcher I 


42,380 


TBD 







- 


3417 


Gardener 


44,798 


19-Mar 




12,923 


12,923 


3417 


Gardener 


44,798 


19-Mar 




12.923 


12,923 


3417 


Gardener 


44,798 


19-Mar 




12,923 


12,923 


3417 


Gardener 


44,798 


19-Mar 




12,923 


12.923 


3417 


Gardener 


44.798 


1 9-Mar 




12,923 


12,923 


3417 


Gardener 


44,798 


19-Mar 




12,923 


12,923 


3417 


Gardener 


44,798 


19-Mar 




12,923 


12,923 


3417 


Gardener 


44,798 


19-Mar 




'2,923 


12,923 


3417 


Gardener 


44,798 


19-Mar 




12.923 


12,923 


7215 


General Laborer Sup 




47.268 


TBD 







- 


7215 


General Laborer Sup 




47,268 


19-Mar 


13,635 




13,635 


7215 


General Laborer Sup 




47.268 


1 9-Mar 


13,635 




13.635 


7215 


General Laborer Sup 




47,268 


19-Mar 


'3.635 




13,635 


7215 


General Laborer Sud 




47,268 


1 9-Mar 


13,635 




13.635 


7215 


General Laborer Sup 




47,268 


19-Mar 




'3,635 


'3.635 


7215 


General Laborer Sup 




47,268 


19-Mar 




13,635 


13,635 


7215 


General Laborer Sua 




47,268 


19-Mar 




13,635 


13,635 


7281 


St. Cleaning Supv. II 


65,858 


30-Apr 


11,399 




1 1 ,399 


7281 


St. Cleaning Supv. II 


65.B58 


30-Aor 


11,399 




11,399 


7281 


St. Cleaning Supv. II 


65,858 


30-Ap' 


11,399 




11.399 


7355 


Truck Driver 


51,652 


05-Feb 




20,864 


20.864 


7355 


Truck Drive r 


51,662 


05-Feb 




20.864 


20.864 


8280 


Envrnm. Cntrl Officer 


46,930 


02-Apr 


11,733 




11,733 


8280 


Envmm. Cntrl Officer 


46,930 


02-A D r 


11,733 




11,733 


8280 


Envrnm. Cntrl Officer 


46,930 


02-Apr 




11,733 


11,733 


8280 


Envrnm. Cntrl Officer 


46.930 


02-Apr 




11,733 


11.733 


8280 


Envrnm. Cntrl Officer 


46,930 


02-Apr 




11,733 


11,733 


8280 


Envrnm. Cntrl Officer 


46,930 


02-Apr 




1 1 ,733 


11,733 


8280 


Envmm. Cntrl Officer 


46,930 


02-Apr 




11,733 


11,733 


8280 


Envrnm. Cntrl Officer 


46,930 


02-Aor 




11.733 


11,733 


8282 


Supervising ECO 


51,623 


TBD 







- 


8262 


Supervising ECO 


51,623 


TBD 







- 


1630 


Accounts Clerk 


40,206 


19-Mar 







- 














- 














- 














- 


Total: 




112.201 


269,330 


381,530 



Notes: 

* Salary Costs as per Salary Table effective January 06, 2001 

TBD = To Be Determined; Unlikely to be filled this FY 



[MFBs@24% 


26.928 


64,639 


91.567 | 




[Total Cost 


139,129 


333,969 


473.097 | 



75 



03/14/2801 10:04 415-554-7800 DPW OFFMA Attachmert II 

Pap b of 8 — 

Author: Jim Johnson at -FUR- CENTRAL- SHOPS 

Date; 03/13/2001 9:43 AM 

Priority: Normal 

Receipt Requested 

TO: Tina Olson at -DFW-OFFMA 

CC: Ara Minasian at -ADMIN-SVCS 

Subject: Bureau Of Environmental Services 

Message Contents ■ 

March 13, 2000 

Tina ,- 

I have listed below the amount that the DPW, Street and Environmental Services 
Division will need to supplement the M&R account and Fuel account for fiscal 
year 2000-2001. If you have any questions, please get back to me. Thanks! 



DPW - Street and Environmental Services 

DPW had budgeted for Street and Environmental Services Division a total of 
$1,913,100 for maintenance and repair. At the end of February the total 
expenditure for this account waB $1,427,700 leaving a total of $485,400 
remaining in this account. 

There are currently two Packer trucks which are in the Truck Shop waiting for 
repairs. Both Packers will require extensive repair to the packing assembly. 
The estimated cost of repair for each of these units is around $25,000 per 
vehicle. Taking this additional $50,000 into account, it will be necessary for 
DPW to supplement Che M&R account with an additional $268,000 to make it through 
the end of the fiscal year. 

DPW had budgeted for Street and Environmental Services Division a total of 
$534,000 for fuel- At the end of February the total expenditure for this 
account was $459, 3 B4, leaving a balance of $74,615. It will be necessary for 
DPW to supplement this account with an additional $151,647 to make it through 
the end of the fiscal year. 

Street and Environmental Services 
M&R $268,000 

Puel $151,647 

Total $419,647 



76 



93/14/2031 10:34 



415-554-7B0B 



DPW CFFMA 



Attachment II 
Page 7 of 8 



n 

o> 

<D .E 

z | 

co 



© 

CO 











^^. 


o 


(0 


o 


UJ 


o 


CO 


o 




CM 


U) 


>- 


0) 



u. 






CO 


en 

c 




> 


2 


re 

CO 



g e e 

"5 2 9 

<u -2 c 

O fU o 

n ci 
O 



0) 

u 

B 

re 
re a) 

£ j= 

re 



co cm 

cm_ K 

o" co" 

o a 



I*. 

q 



o r- 

CO CO 

CM_ CO_ 

o" a> 

w- CN 



CD O 

CM CD 

T-_ 0)_ 

CT>" co" 

CO CO 

T- CO 






O 






fc 


b 


re 


c 


re 


o 


CO 


> 


•a 


c 


a 


UJ 


o 


■*-» 


a> 


0) 

a> 


'5" 

c 

0- 


CO 


«•» 


(A 


c 


5 


0) 


lO- 


(A 


Cl 


9 



■o r- 

0) w 
CO g 

o re 
CO 



r"> CN 



>3- oo 



■a 
c 

u. 

— X 

co ro 

i i- 

C IB 

cd re 



oa 

CM 









77 



53/14/2081 10:04 



415-554-7800 



DPW OFFMA 



Attachment II 
'-^age 8 of 8 



As-needed General Laborers 

April 1 , 2001 thru June 30, 2001 

DPW's Street Environmental Services (SES) 



General Laborers 

MFBs @ 20% 
Total 



Biweekly Number of Multiply by 6 

Pay General Laborers pay periods 



1,375 



30 



247,500 

49,500 

297,000 



78 



Attachment III 



Department of Public Works 
Bureau of Street Environmental Services 
Manual Cleaning Staffing 
By Supervisory District 



With 60 Position: 



District Day Shift 


Swing Shift 


Night Shift 


Totals 


1 


8 








8 


2 


7 


1 





8 


3 


15 


1 





16 


4 


7 








7 


5 


7 


1 





8 


6 


20 


4 


10 


34 


7 


7 


2 





9 


8 


13 


3 


2 


18 


9 


10 


1 





11 


10 


10 


2 





12 


11 


14 


3 


2 


19 


Total 


118 


18 


14 


150 












Fri-Mon * 


59 


9 


7 


75 



Without 60 Positions: 



District Dav Shift 


Swing Shift 


Night Shift 


Totals 


1 


5 








5 


2 


4 








4 


3 


8 


1 





9 


4 


4 








4 


5 


4 


1 





5 


6 


11 


4 


8 


23 


7 


4 


2 





6 


8 


7 


2 


1 


10 


9 


6 


1 





7 


10 


6 


1 





7 


11 


8 


1 


1 


10 


Total 


67 


13 


10 


90 










Fri-Mon * 


33 


6 


5 


44 



* Subset of Totals 



79 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 8 - File 01-0274 



Department: 
Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Treasurer and Tax Collector's Office 

Ordinance amending the Business and Tax 
Regulations Code to (1) repeal Section 917.1 of Article 
12-A and all of Article 12-B to eliminate the Gross 
Receipts method of calculating the tax on businesses; 
(2) enact a new Article 12 to amend the Business Tax 
Registration requirements consistent with the repeal 
of Article 12-B; and, (3) enact a new Article 12-B to 
refund Gross Receipts-based tax payments for the 
2000 tax year (January 1, 2000 through December 31, 
2000) to the extent that such payments exceeded 
businesses' tax liability for such year as measured by 
their payroll expense and resulting Payroll Tax 
liability to the City, effective retroactively to January 
1, 2000. 

According to Mr. Tom Owen of the City Attorney's 
Office, the proposed ordinance would: 

• Repeal the Gross Receipts method of calculating 
the Business Tax effective January 1, 2000 (2000 
tax year). 

• Amend the Business Tax Registration Certificate 
Fee requirements to be consistent with the repeal 
of the Gross Receipts Tax. 

• Refund Gross Receipts-based Taxes for the 2000 
tax year which exceed the amount that would have 
been due to the City in Payroll Taxes based on the 
businesses' payroll expenses. 

1. According to Ms. Julie Van Nostern of the City 
Attorney's Office, this ordinance is intended to respond 
to a series of lawsuits challenging the City's Business 
Tax structure. Ms. Van Nostern advises that those 
lawsuits include a claim that the City's alternative 
Business Tax structure is unconstitutional because 
businesses are required to pay the City either its Gross 
Receipts liability or its Payroll Tax liability, whichever 
is higher. According to Ms. Van Nostern, the Superior 
Court has ruled against the City as to the 
constitutionality of the alternative Business Tax 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

80 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



structure and advises that this Superior Court 
decision is on appeal. Ms. Van Nostern states that 
although the City disagrees with the decision of the 
Superior Court, repealing the Gross Receipts Tax 
method and imposing only the Payroll Taxes on 
businesses would eliminate any future potential 
liability to the City based on the claim of 
unconstitutionality of the alternative tax scheme. 

In FY 2000-2001, the Controller has placed on reserve 
$26.1 million in Gross Receipts Tax revenue 
representing the estimated annual liability for the 
City's current fiscal year. The Controller has also set 
aside additional funds to cover reimbursement for any 
liability which may have been incurred in prior years. 

2. According to Mr. George Putris, Tax Administrator, 
Business Taxes owed to the City are currently 
determined by one of two methods: (a) 1.5 percent of 
payroll expenses (the Payroll Tax); and, (b) Gross 
Receipts (the Gross Receipts Tax), which varies from a 
flat $800 a year to $1.23 to $3.00 per $1,000 of Gross 
Receipts depending on the type of business. 
Businesses are required to pay the City either the 
Payroll Tax or the Gross Receipts Tax, whichever is 
higher. Such taxes are remitted to the General Fund. 

3. Under the proposed ordinance, the Gross Receipts 
Tax method would be eliminated beginning in the 
2000 tax year, effective January 1, 2000. Therefore, if 
this ordinance is approved, the Tax Collector's Office 
will contact an estimated 1,640 businesses (the 
estimate is based on 1999 tax year figures) who were 
required to pay the City on the basis of their Gross 
Receipts Tax liability and advise such businesses to 
calculate the Business Taxes due to the City by using 
the Payroll Tax method, so that the Tax Collector can 
compare the amount of the Payroll Tax due to the City 
to the amount already paid using the Gross Receipts 
Tax method. An Associate Auditor in the Tax 
Collector's Office would then compare the amount of 
the taxes due under the two methods and refund the 
amount of the Gross Receipts-based Taxes for the 2000 
tax year which exceed the amount due to the City from 
the Businesses' Payroll Tax liability. Mr. Mark 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

81 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Buckley of the Tax Collector's Office advises that such 
a procedure would result in the Tax Collector 
incurring estimated costs of $39,000, based on the 
salary and fringe benefits for a 0.5 FTE Associate 
Auditor. 

4. The Deputy Tax Administrator, Ms. Ayisha 
Benham, estimates that the annual foregone revenue 
from eliminating the Gross Receipts method would be 
approximately $22.1 million (the estimate is based on 
1999 tax year figures) The Controller's reserve of $26.1 
million for FY 2000-2001 in Comment 1 is based upon 
expected growth in Gross Receipts Tax revenues since 
1999. Attachment I, provided by the Tax Collector's 
Office, indicates how the Tax Collector estimated the 
$22.1 million of the tax revenue to be foregone. 

5. Mr. Putris notes that eliminating the Gross 
Receipts method of tax payment will also require 
changing how the Business Tax Registration 
Certificate Fees are determined. Currently, the 
Business Tax Registration Certificate Fee can be 
based on either Gross Receipts or the Payroll Expense. 
Under the proposed ordinance, the Business Tax 
Registration Fee would be based on the Payroll 
Expense Tax liability. According to Ms. Benham, 
under the proposed ordinance, businesses whose 
Payroll Tax liability to the City would result in no 
taxes being paid to the City, would pay the minimum 
Business Tax Registration Certificate Fee of $25 and 
businesses which would owe a Payroll Tax liability to 
the City would pay either $150, $250 or $500 annually 
depending on the level of their tax liability. Presently 
all businesses whose Gross Receipts Tax liability or 
Payroll Tax liability is $2,500 or less, are exempt from 
paying Business Taxes to the City. Ms. Benham 
estimates the forgone Business Tax Registration 
Certificate Fee revenue for the General Fund, based on 
tax year 1999 data, would be approximately $3.9 
million annually, beginning in FY 2001-2002. 
Attachment I, provided by the Tax Collector's Office, 
shows how the Tax Collector estimated the amount of 
$3.9 million of foregone Business Tax Registration 
Certificate Fees. Businesses will be informed of the 
changes to the Business Tax Registration Certificate 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

82 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Fee calculation in the annual Registration mailing at 
no additional cost to the Tax Collector's Office. 

6. Ms. Serena Wong from the Department of 
Telecommunications and Information Services (DTIS) 
states that in order to implement the proposed 
ordinance, the DTIS Business Tax Programming Team 
will need to: (1) modify the existing Business Tax 
system to handle data from the pre and post 2000 tax 
year (the effective date of the proposed ordinance is 
January 1, 2000); (2) develop and/or modify software 
programs to implement the 2000 tax year refund 
process; and, (3) provide management reports to the 
Tax Collector to support the refund process. Ms. Wong 
estimates that the DTIS will spend approximately 
2,418 hours modifying and/or developing software for 
the Tax Collector's Office at an estimated hourly rate 
of $91.42 for a total cost estimate of $221,054. 
Attachment II, provided by DTIS, details what DTIS 
services will be required at an estimated cost of 
$221,054, to modify the existing Business Tax system 
software currently used by the Tax Collector in 
determining a Business' Tax obligation. 

7. Because the Tax Collector already printed its 
publications on Business Tax calculations in December 
of 2000, Mr. Buckley advises that instituting the 
repeal of the Gross Receipts Tax will require revising 
and reprinting of the Tax Collector's publications as 
well as printing and mailing out refund forms to the 
estimated 1,640 businesses who used the Gross 
Receipts Tax method to pay their Business taxes to the 
City. Mr. Buckley estimates the printing and mailing 
costs would be approximately $4,500. 

8. According to the Tax Collector's Office, the one-time 
estimated administrative costs for implementing the 
proposed ordinance would include: (1) Tax Collector 
costs of approximately $39,000 to refund the 
differential between Payroll Expense Taxes and Gross 
Receipts Taxes; (2) $221,054 in Department of 
Telecommunications and Information Services costs 
associated with changes to or new programs for the 
Tax Collector's Business Tax Software system; and, (3) 
$4,500 in costs to revise and reprint the Tax Collector's 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

83 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 21, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



publications as well as printing and mailing out 
refund forms to the estimated 1,640 businesses who 
used the Gross Receipts Tax method, resulting in a 
total estimated one-time administrative cost of 
$264,554. 



Recommendation: 



9. According to Mr. Putris, the Treasurer-Tax 
Collector anticipates that a . supplemental 
appropriation will be required to fund a portion of the 
estimated one-time administrative cost of $264,554 
that will be incurred during the remainder of FY 2000- 
2001. However, as of the writing of this report, Mr. 
Putris is unable to estimate the precise amount that 
will be requested in such a supplemental 
appropriation. 

Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter 
for the Board of Supervisors. 



/Harvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Gonzalez 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Steve Kawa 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

84 



i - i ' A Atta ch ment I 

Office Of The Treasurer & Tax Collector 

City and County of San Francisco 

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 7426 ♦> San Francisco, CA 94120-7426 

Street Address: 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place •> San Francisco, CA 94102-0917 

SUSAN LEAL, Treason 

Phone: (415)554-447 

GEORGE PUTRIS, Tax Administrate 

Phone: (415)554-487 

AYISHA J. BENHAM, Deputy Tax Administratt 

Phone (415) 554-446 




Elimination of Gross Receipts Measure 

Business Tax Revenue Decrease 

Based on tax year 1999 data, the total amount of Gross Receipts revenues collected was S32.9 
million. We anticipate that the City will receive the lesser payroll tax amount from those 
taxpayers above the S2500 threshold amount of calculated tax. The lesser payroll tax above the 
threshold amount was SI 0.8 million. Therefore, the foregone revenue due to elimination of 
gross receipt tax is S22.1 million. 

Effect of Gross Receipts Elimination on Calculation of Registration Fee 

Currently, the registration fee is based on the taxpayers' tax liability, which is the higher of either 
the gross receipts tax or the payroll expense tax. The proposed legislation will eliminate the 
gross receipts tax and therefore change how registration fee amounts are determined. The 
registration fee amount will be based on a taxpayer's payroll expense tax liability. Taxpayers 
with SO in payroll expense tax will now pay the S25 minimum registration fee and the rest, based 
on the amount of their payroll expense tax, will pay either SI 50, S250 or S500 annually. 
Currently, only taxpayers with less than S15.000 in annual gross receipts pay the S25 rninimum 
registration fee. 

Based on tax year 1999 data, S9 million was generated in registration fee revenues from 67,300 
taxpayers. The impact of this new legislation will result in 34,900 taxpayers paying a lesser 
amount; 2,200 will pay a greater amount (although it appears that these 2,200 either underpaid 
originally or paid a prorated amount the previous year as a newly started business); and 30,200 
taxpayers will pay the same amount of annual registration fee. 34,400 taxpayers that previously 
paid a higher registration fee amount will now pay the S25 minimum registration fee. Under the 
new scheme, the total registration fees from the same 67,300 taxpayers will generate S5.1 million 
in revenue. Consequently the annual registration fee revenues will decline by S3. 9 million. 



85 



and County of San Francisco 



Liza M. Lowery 
Executive Director 

Telephone: (415)534-0801 




Attachment 11 
Page 1 of 2 
Department of Telecommunications 
and Information Services 

Rod Loucks 

Chief Technology Officer 

Telephone: (413) 554-0893 Fax: (415) 554-4733 

Serena Wong, BTS Project Manager 

Telephone: (415) 554-0862 Fax: (415) 554-0886 



March 12,2001 

To: Maureen Singleton, Budget Analyst 

From: Serena Wong, DTIS 

Subject: Justification for Business Tax System Revised Legislation Programming 

Maureen, 

Currently, the Business Tax System is calculating the business taxes for taxpayers based on 
the higher of their gross receipts taxes or payroll taxes. In order to implement the revised 
legislation, the DTIS Business Tax Programming Team will need to accomplish the following 
objectives: 

1. Existing programs need to be changed to handle tax years before 2000, according to the old 
Business Tax Laws (i.e. calculating taxes based on the higher of the gross receipts tax or 
the payroll tax), as well as post- year 2000 tax years for payroll tax only. More specifically: 

• Edit checks need to be put into programs to prevent users from data entry error for all 
online programs. 

• Batch programs for Business Tax processes such as prepayments, second notices, 
determinations, registration fees and audit pools need to be modified as a result of 
getting rid of gross receipts taxes. 

• Annual statements scanning programs and databases need to be modified to process 
tax year 2001 annual statements for payroll tax only. 

2. New programs need to be developed and/or modified to implement the tax year 2000 refund 
process. More specifically, programs will need to be developed for 

• Identifying eligible refund taxpayers and downloading their tax year 2000 tax data from 
annual statements, in order to print refund claim affidavits. 

• Calculating refund claim amounts minus outstanding obligations. 

• Adding flags in the Business Tax System database and online screens to identify 
taxpayers who file for refunds and amended payroll tax annual statements. 

• Modifying online screens to display the refund flags mentioned in 2c. 

• Reporting taxpayers that claimed refunds. 

• Automatically amending statements with gross receipts equal to zero for taxpayers that 
do not file amended returns. 



875 Stevenson Street, Fifth Floor • San Francisco, CA 94103-0948 
Otfire: (415) 554-0300 • Facsimile: (415)554-4717 



86 



Attachment II 

Page 2 of 2 

3. Provide adhoc management reports to support the refund process and modify existing 
adhoc reports. 

The time estimate for this Business Tax System modification and refund process is 2,418 hours. 
The cost estimate based on $91.42 per hour is $221 ,053.56. 

Should you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 
Serena Wong 



cc: Erich Seamon 



87 



t£rrb$ 



City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance Committee 

Members: Supervisors Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin and Matt Gonzalez 



Clerk: GailJohnson 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102-4689 



Wednesday, March 28, 2001 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin, Matt Gonzalez. 



MEETING CONVENED 

The meeting convened at 10:14 a.m. 

010402 [Pre-Tax Payroll Deduction Plan] 

Resolution allowing additional payroll deductions from salary to be pre-tax in accordance with CalPERS 
retirement plan requirements. (Human Resources Department) 
2/23/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Edward Harrington. Controller: Alice 
Villagomez, Deputy Director. Employee Relations Division, Department of Human Resources. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



002197 [Parking station regulations] 
Supervisors Leno, Bierman 

Ordinance adding Article 49 Sections 4901 to 4914 to the San Francisco Police Code to require parking 

stations to have revenue control equipment and to provide receipts to occupants, to have appropriate signage, 

to provide that the Department of Consumer Assurance will confirm accuracy of revenue control equipment. 

and to provide for criminal or civil penalties for violations. 

12/18/00, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Housing and Social Policy Committee, expires on 1/17/2001. 

2/1/01, TRANSFERRED to Neighborhood Services and Parks Committee. New committee structure. 

3/5/01, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst: Susan Leal, Treasurer; Terence Hallinan. 

District Attorney; Laurel Pollack, Investigator, Consumer Fraud Unit, District Attorney's Office; Dave 

Freiders, Director, Department of Consumer Assurance; Gloria Payne. SECOM International: Jim lllig. 

President, Coalition of Agencies Serving Elderly; Bernie Rush; Richard Ow; Bruce Allison; Jose Morales; 

Vernon Cash, Pacific Parking Systems; Mary B. Fort; Dr. William E. Winn, Jr.; Rich Lipner. Meals on 

Wheels; Mark Gleason, President, Teamsters Local 665; Marie Jobling, Director. Planning for Elders in the 

Central City; Tim Leonoudakis, City Park; Theodore Lakey. Deputy City Attorney 

Supervisors Peskin and Gonzalez added as co-sponsors. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 12:18PM on 3 3 tU 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



March 2H. 2001 



Ordinance adding Article 49 Sections 4901 to 4916 to the San Francisco Police Code to require parking 
stations to have revenue control equipment and to provide receipts to occupants, to have appropriate signage, 
to provide that the Department of Consumer Assurance will confirm accuracy of revenue control equipment, 
and to provide for criminal or civil penalties for violations and amending Section 6.6-1 the San Francisco 
Business and Tax Regulation Code to allow revocation of a certificate of authority for failure to comply with 
the provisions of the Police Code. 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



010507 |City Holidayl 

Supervisors Sandoval, Ammiano, Maxwell 

Hearing to consider declaring March 31st, Cesar Chavez's birthday, an official City holiday. 

3/19/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Sponsor requests this item be scheduled for consideration at the March 

28, 2001 meeting. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Sandoval; Edward Harrington. Controller; Theodore Lakey, 
Deputy City Attorney; Alice Villagomez. Deputy Director. Employee Relations Division. Department of 
Human Resources; Erin McGrath, Mayor's Budget Manager; Walter Johnson. San Francisco Labor Council; 
Lawanna Preston, Service Employees International Union (SE1U), Linda Joseph. SEIU Local 535; Eva 
Royale, United Farm Workers; Stan Warren, San Francisco Building and Construction Council; Mr. Garcia. 
Organizer, Local 790. 
FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno. Peskin, Gonzalez 



010146 [Lease of property at 1360 Mission Street for DPH-Employee Assistance Program] 

Resolution authorizing a new lease of real property currently occupied by the City under the terms of an earlier 

lease at 1360 Mission Street, San Francisco, for a term of three years commencing retroactively as of July 1, 

2000 at an initial monthly rent of $8,000 per month for the Employee Assistance Program of the Department of 

Public Health. (Real Estate Department) 

1/24/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee 

2/14/01 , CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst. Judy Schutzman, 

Department of Public Health, Anthony Delucchi, Director of Property, Real Estate Division, Administrative Services Department, 

Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Alms, Real Estate Division. Administrative Services Department 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Haney Rose. Budget Analyst; Anthony Delucchi, Director of Property. Real 
Estate Division. Administrative Services Department. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



010031 [Reserved Funds, Emergency Communications Department! 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds. Emergency Communications Department, in the amount of 
$4,500,000 (File 101-97-8, Ordinance No. 366-97), to fund the emergency response fee including debt service 
payments in connection with the 91 1 Project. (Mayor) 
1/3/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 
2/1/01, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. New committee structure. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Anna Okubo. Director of Finance and 
Administration. Emergency Communications Department. Edward Harrington, Controller. 
Release of reserved funds in the amount of S4. 500. 000 approved 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 



Primed at 12:1S PM on I 3 N 






Finance Committee Meeting Minutes March 28, 2001 



010356 [TRW Contract Modification No. 6 - Software and Professional Services for the Combined Emergency 
Communication Center] 

Resolution authorizing the E-91 1 Project Director to execute a modification to the contract with TRW in the 
amount of $536,210. (Mayor) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

2/21/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Dan Fraijo, Chief of Staff, Emergency 

Communications Department; Kelly Hayden; Edward Harrington, Controller. 

Amended lines 4 and 20 by replacing "in the amount of" with "for an amount not to exceed. " Further 

amended by adding Further Resolved clauses placing $1,500,000 in liquidated damages on reserve and 

requesting Department to repot back to the Board. 

AMENDED. 

Resolution authorizing the E-91 1 Project Director to execute a modification to the contract with TRW for an 

amount not to exceed $536,210; placing funds in the amount of $1,500,000 for liquidated damages on reserve. 

(Mayor) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



SPECIAL ORDER - 12:00 NOON 



010274 [Business Tax Gross Receipts] 

Supervisors Gonzalez, Peskin, Maxwell, Hall, Sandoval, Daly, McGoldrick 

Ordinance amending the Business and Tax Regulations Code to (1) repeal Section 917.1 of Article 12-A and 
all of Article 12-B to eliminate the gross receipts method of calculating the tax on businesses; (2) enact a new 
Article 12 to amend business registration requirements consistent with the repeal of Article 12-B; and (3) enact 
a new Article 1 2-B to refund gross receipts-based tax payments for the 2000 tax year to the extent that such 
payments exceeded businesses' tax liability for such year as measured by their payroll expense. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

2/12/01, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance Committee, expires on 3/14/2001. 

3/21/01, CONTINUED. Speakers: None. Continued to 3/28/01. 

Heard on Committee. Speakers: Louise Renne, City Attorney; Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney; Julie 

Van Nostern; Mark Norton; Joel Ventresca; Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney; Edward Harrington, 

Controller. 

Amendment of the Whole prepared in Committee, making seven minor technical changes. The modifications 

do not make substantive changes. (See file for details.) 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING SAME TITLE. 

REFERRED WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 3 Printed at 12:1 S PM on 3/3/04 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



March 28, 2001 



010512 [Settlement or Obligation Bond Issuance) 
Supervisor Peskin 

Resolution providing for the issuance of not to exceed $69,060,000 aggregate principal amount of City and. 
County of San Francisco Settlement Obligation Bonds, Series 2001 (Business Tax Judgment); authorizing the 
execution, authentication and registration of said bonds; providing for an annual appropriation to pay the 
principal and interest thereof; providing for the appointment of depositories and other agents for said bonds; 
providing for the establishment of accounts relating thereto; ratifying certain actions previously taken; and 
granting general authority to City officials to take necessary actions in connection with the authorization, 
issuance, sale and delivery of said bonds. 

(Companion measure to File 010513.) 

3/17/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Sponsor requests this item be scheduled for consideration at the March 

28,2001 meeting. 

Heard on Committee. Speakers: Louise Renne, City Attorney; Theodore Lakey. Deputy City Attorney; Julie 

Van Nostern; Mark Norton; Joel Ventresca; Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney; Edward Harrington, 

Controller. 

Amendment of the Whole making technical amendments. (See fde for details.) 

Supervisor Gonzalez dissenting in Committee. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING SAME TITLE. 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote. 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Peskin 
Noes; 1 - Gonzalez 



010513 [Settlement of Obligation Bond Salel 
Supervisor Peskin 

Resolution authorizing and directing the sale of not to exceed 569,060,000 City and County of San Francisco 
Settlement Obligation Bonds, Series 2001 (Business Tax Judgment); prescribing the form and terms of said 
bonds; authorizing the execution, authentication and registration of said bonds; providing for the appointment 
of depositories and other agents for said bonds; providing for the establishment of accounts relating thereto; 
approving the forms of the Official Notice of Sale and the Notice of Intention to Sell Bonds; directing the 
publication of the Official Notice of Sale and Notice of Intention to Sell Bonds; approving the form and 
execution of the Official Statement relating thereto; approving the form of the Continuing Disclosure 
Certificate; approving modifications to the documents approved herein; ratifying certain actions previously 
taken; and granting general authority to City officials to take necessary actions in connection with the 
authorization, issuance, sale and delivery of said bonds. 

3/19/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee Sponsor requests this item be scheduled for consideration at the March 
28, 2001 meeting. 

Heard on Committee. Speakers: Louise Renne, City Attorney; Theodore Lakey. Deputy City Attorney ; Julie 

Van Nostern; Mark Norton; Joel Ventresca; Theodore Lakey. Deputy City Attorney; Edward Harrington. 

Controller. 

Amendment of the Whole making technical amendments. (See file for details.) 

Supervisor Gonzalez dissenting in Committee. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 






City and County of San Francisco 



Primed at 12:18 PM on 3 ? IU 






Finance Committee Meeting Minutes March 28, 2001 

Resolution authorizing and directing the sale of not to exceed $69,060,000 City and County of San Francisco 
Settlement Obligation Bonds, Series 2001 (Business Tax Judgment); prescribing the form and terms of said 
bonds; authorizing the execution, authentication and registration of said bonds; providing for the appointment 
of depositories and other agents for said bonds; providing for the establishment of accounts relating thereto; 
approving the forms of the Official Notice of Sale and the Notice of Intention to Sell Bonds; directing the 
publication of the Notice of Intention to Sell Bonds; approving the form and execution of the Official 
Statement relating thereto; approving the form of the Continuing Disclosure Certificate; approving 
modifications to the documents approved herein; ratifying certain actions previously taken; and granting 
general authority to City officials to take necessary actions in connection with the authorization, issuance, sale 
and delivery of said bonds. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

(Supervisor Gonzalez dissenting in Committee.) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Peskin 
Noes: 1 - Gonzalez 



010437 [Settlement of business tax lawsuits; authorization to make binding settlement offers; authorization to 
settle unlitigated claims] 
Supervisors Peskin, Leno, Hall, McGoldrick, Maxwell, Yee 

Ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuits filed by Eastman Kodak Company and General Motors 
Corporation versus the City and County of San Francisco by payment of a total amount not to exceed 
$129,000, plus interest; the Eastman Kodak lawsuit was filed on April 22, 1999 in San Francisco Superior 
Court, Case No. 302983 (Court of Appeal No. A091910), entitled Eastman Kodak Company v. City and 
County of San Francisco; the General Motors lawsuit was filed on February 24, 1999 in San Francisco Superior 
Court, Case No. 301510 (Court of Appeal A091914), entitled General Motors Corporation v. City and County 
of San Francisco; the other material terms of the settlements are that the settlements shall include any claims for 
the 2000 tax year, plaintiffs shall not file any claims for refunds otherwise due pursuant to any repeal of the 
gross receipts tax ordinance for the 2000 tax year, the plaintiffs shall agree to join in an application for a 
stipulated reversal of the trial court decisions pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 128; 
authorizing the City Attorney to make offers to allow judgment pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 
Section 998 in various business tax cases, for a total amount not to exceed $64,061,917; and further authorizing 
settlement of unlitigated claims, for a total amount not to exceed $718,871. 
3/7/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Audit, Labor and Government Efficiency Committee. 
3/12/01, SUBSTITUTED. Supervisor Peskin submitted a substitute ordinance bearing new title. 
3/12/01, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supen'isor Daly; Louise Renne, City Attorney; Karen Snell, Attorney; 
Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney; Randy Shaw, Tenderloin Housing Clinic; Kevin Danaher, Co- 
Founder, Global Exchange; Anamaria Loya, Executive Director, La Raza Centro Legal; Marc Norton, San 
Franciscans for Tax Justice; Riva Enteen, People's Budget of National Lawyers Guild; Nora Roman; Rosalync 
Montgomery; Jose Morales; Michael Lyon, Emergency Coalition to Save Public Health; Jeffrey Margolis, 
Attorney; Rob Groshardt; Chandra Egan; Joel Ventresca; Joyce Miller, Community Activist; Robert 
Haaland, Housing Rights Committee; David Grace; Ruben Garcia, Local 790; Leila Salazar. Global 
Exchange; Supervisor Ammiano. 

Amendment of the Whole making technical amendments prepared in Committee. (See file for details.) 
Supervisor Gonzalez dissenting in Committee. 
AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 



City and County of San Francisco 5 Printed at 1 2: IS PM on 3/3/04 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



March 28, 2001 



Ordinance authorizing settlement of the lawsuits filed by Eastman Kodak Company and General Motors 
Corporation versus the City and County of San Francisco by payment of a total amount not to exceed 
$1 12,889.78 plus interest; the Eastman Kodak lawsuit was filed on April 22, 1999 in San Francisco Superior 
Court, Case No. 302983 (Court of Appeal No. A091910), entitled Eastman Kodak Company v. City and 
County of San Francisco; the General Motors lawsuit was filed on February 24, 1999 in San Francisco Superior 
Court, Case No. 301510 (Court of Appeal A091914), entitled General Motors Corporation v. City and County 
of San Francisco; the other material terms of the settlements are that the settlements shall include any claims for 
the 2000 tax year, plaintiffs shall not file any claims for refunds otherwise due pursuant to any repeal of the 
gross receipts tax ordinance for the 2000 tax year, the plaintiffs shall agree to join in an application for a 
stipulated reversal of the trial court decisions pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 128; 
authorizing the City Attorney to make offers to allow judgment pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 
Section 998 in various business tax cases, for a total amount not to exceed 563,980,109.06; and further 
authorizing settlement of unlitigated claims, for a total amount not to exceed S380,576.16. 

(Supervisor Gonzalez dissenting in Committee.) 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes; 2 - Leno, Peskin 
Noes: 1 - Gonzalez 



ADJOURNMENT 



The meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m 









City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 12:18PM 



[Budget Analyst Report] 
Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



March 22, 2001 



TO: ^Finance Committee 

FROM: .Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 1- File 01-0402 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

APR - 6 2001 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Department: 
Item: 



Description: 



Department of Human Resources 



Resolution allowing additional payroll deductions from 
salary to be pre-tax in accordance with California Public 
Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) retirement 
plan requirements. 

The proposed resolution would allow City employees who 
are CalPERS participants to purchase service credit from 
or redeposit funds to CalPERS on a pre-tax basis. 1 Both 
service credit purchases and the redepositing of funds 
allow employees to receive pension credit for gaps in their 
CalPERS participation. Service credit purchases allow 
employees who temporarily left CalPERS to purchase 
pension credit for the time between their departure and 
return. Redeposits of funds apply to employees who 
previously participated in CalPERS but then left the 
system and withdrew their retirement funds upon 
leaving. These employees subsequently returned to 
CalPERS and now wish to redeposit the funds they 



1 "Pre-tax basis" means an employee's contribution is deducted from his or her salary before taxes 
are calculated, meaning the employee does not pay taxes on the contribution portion of his or her 
salary. 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

withdrew in order to receive pension credit for their prior 
participation. The proposed resolution would benefit the 
eligible employees by allowing them to defer Federal and 
State Income Taxes until retirement on the employee 
payments required to purchase the service credit or make 
a redeposit to CalPERS. The eligible employees may 
currently purchase such service credit and redeposit 
funds but on an after-tax basis. 2 

The Board of Administration of CalPERS approved a pre- 
tax payroll deduction plan at its April 1996 meeting for 
service credit purchases under Internal Revenue Code 
(IRC) section 414(h)(2). 

This proposed resolution would authorize the City (a) to 
deduct the employee-approved contributions from the 
employee's pay on a pre-tax basis and remit them to 
CalPERS and (b) to credit individual employee accounts 
for the service credit purchases or redeposits made by 
employees to CalPERS. 

According to Ms. Clare Murphy of the Employees 
Retirement System (ERS), service credit purchases would 
include such events as the period of time during which an 
employee was a temporary employee, was in the military, 
took a leave of absence, or worked for another government 
entity. Ms. Murphy adds that employees who were 
previously CalPERS members, but who withdrew their 
funds upon leaving the employer through which they 
belonged to CalPERS, would now be eligible to purchase 
service credit by redepositing such funds on a pre-tax 
basis. To be eligible such employees must have 
subsequently rejoined CalPERS and want to receive 
pension credit for the time during which they previously 
particpated in CalPERS. 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Alice Villagomez, the Department of 

Human Resources would notify the affected departments 
and employee groups of the change. She adds that the 
notification would most likely occur by mail and possibly 
by fax in some instances. The Attachment, provided by 



2 "After-tax basis" means that the employee's salary is taxed and then the contribution is deducted, 
meaning the employee pays taxes on the contribution portion of his or her salary. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



the Controller's Office, lists the City employee 
classifications eligible for CalPERS membership. 

2. According to Ms. Sandra Holmes of the Controller's 
Office, 1,052 current City employees are CalPERS 
participants. Of those, 18 are currently purchasing prior 
service credit or redepositing funds on an after-tax basis. 
Ms. Holmes says the City does not maintain data on how 
many of the City's CalPERS participants have prior 
service credit or redeposit opportunities and thus might 
take advantage of the opportunity to purchase prior 
service credit or redeposit funds on a pre-tax basis. 

3. According to Ms. Pamela Levin of the Controller's 
Office, the proposed resolution would have a minimal 
fiscal impact on the City. She estimates that 1,034 
employees (1,052 current CalPERS participants less the 
18 who are already purchasing prior service credit or 
redepositing funds) would have to be notified. Assuming 
$0.34 postage per notification, the cost of the mailing 
would be $351.56. She estimates that even if there is a 
cost for producing the mailing, the total estimated cost 
would be less than $1,000. According to Ms. Villagomez, 
such funds would be absorbed from the existing 
Department of Human Resources line item for Mailing 
and Postage. 

4. Ms. Murphy notes that the proposed resolution would 
not affect employer contributions but rather only 
employee contributions to CalPERS. She further notes 
that the proposed resolution would provide a tax deferral 
but not an avoidance of taxes. The extent of the tax 
benefit would depend upon the employee's tax bracket. 
Employees would have the opportunity to make 
agreements with CalPERS to purchase service credit or 
redeposit funds. These agreements would be binding and 
irrevocable, as required by State law. The employees 
would be bound for the period for which they sign the 
contract. No exceptions to the binding and irrevocable 
status would be allowed, even for financial hardship. Ms. 
Murphy notes that the proposed resolution is 
substantially similar to a 1999 ordinance amendment 
that allowed employees in the City's own Employees 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Retirement System to purchase service credit or redeposit 
funds on a pre-tax basis. 

5. The proposed resolution would take effect when 
CalPERS accepts the resolution as approved by the Board 
of Supervisors. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 






ATTACHMENT 
Page 1 of 2 



o o o oooooooaaooopoaooooaoooooooa 






< : = i i ^ ^ 

uj lu uj uj uj t: tc 
2 w to w «3 a. a. 



i t 

o -a 

g £ _ 

it "3 w w Z (fl 



S I 






3 < < 
§ o o 



d o. D. a. a. a. 



u. u. u. u. u. u. 



e/5COU3COwV3OT(/JCO</J<fl</)lO 



m o a o t- o O 






3 " 



tO tO U3 CO CO U3 



ai o> qi a) a 



I > 1 3 il 



■£ „ a ci 



- S 

= a 



Cl O) _ 

OOOlOWlOWcTJOG^Ij 

r "Ooao"o'o"Qoocooo 

CLQ.Q.ClQ.Q.t,Q.CL£lQ.aO. 



5 rz 



5 I 



5 y o. 



3 % 



x o- w o 



2 ■* 

S 5 

O ui 

J UJ 






u c w a < a. 






coooococoocMno 



O v v v- 



CN CM CN CM T 



S5S 

rsj n to 
to CD io 



??sssss 

t- ^ t- N N N (N 
03 CO B CD *0 CO CO 



i-oxi-aoaooo 



£tCX<<<<<< 
CLCLOOaOGO 



ininioinfcntaaaoicn 
pooooooaa 

CMCMC4CMCMCMCM<M<N 

(OaCDDlDcOCOCOCO 

5 5 X x a 5 
3 3 5 o o 5 < 

-> S u. X X 5 LC 



a. — 

5 S 



!i 



oi £ J 



w ™ .H < _ 

"5 E 3 >. 3 

•= = = •■= "a 

i- x a. o < 



5 Q- 



e i 



2 2 

v> c 

■C 3 

< 6 

S 6 



OOo-OQ.2u-ucjcj3iZ 



CM e-1 to & to ^O 



n o a a 



O O <- co ao — 



•q- o fl — CD 



ATTACHMENT 
Page 2 of 2 



ooogoooaoooooooooogooooaoooaoa 



h*r»r^r^r^r^*NN 



f: t £ 



fs. r- r< r*» N h- 






«3<OCQ(J>CTCTa)ClCD3DOOa3eOaO<OOOaOC>CDa3QD<C<C(Oa3«3 



5 * 






QQQQ5W(Oi/5</> 



3 15 
5 5 5 

£ 5 £ 

-. T 1 

a o o 

XIX 



d e e e 





| 
C 


•« 










TJ 


? 




J 




2 5 


TJ 


■ 


2 S 

2 2 


9 


2 35 

2 2 



E S: 3> 



a! 

^ u u. 

^ (fl w 



CD0009«0«-O000(0 






n i 

S « v 

5 S3 

6 £ t 



$ t I a 



£ a v> u 



— - c 



S 5. 



C w w* ^' 



?5| 



(O W W U3 O 



5 J2 



u I 



J- 8 



5 I 
IS 

8 I 



o - ■•» 

- t-i 



2 5 3 



2 1 

2 « 



■a = 5 Q * 



M 



l ° 

1 8 



§5-2-25 



O O O w _ 

ooutotoy)a3oicoQ(JV3Qoa.a.uj 



< = 



o» <*" T <c 
O (N o o 
£M <N «n 



530cn^«<ccoo^ 



. <N r-* <N CN 



cQcooDasnco^aoaooooootfcoaoaDQD 



« O ▼ <0 «3 ▼ W> 



w> to *r ■*■ a o 



a o o 

r*- en ?i 






c g 



- 03 (D (D 

« n o O 



s s 



tO ID fN CN CN C"> 



-J < W < a. 



<n cn n <o 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 2 - File 00-2197 

Note: An Amendment of the Whole will be introduced at the March 28, 2001 
Finance Committee Meeting, however, as of the writing of this report, the Budget 
Analyst has not received the Amendment of the Whole, and as such this report is 
based on the version introduced on December 18, 2000. 



Department: 
Item: 



Description: 



Department of Consumer Assurance (DCA) 
District Attorney's Office 

Ordinance adding Article 49, Sections 4901-4914, to the 
San Francisco Police Code to require parking stations l to 
have revenue control equipment and to provide receipts to 
occupants, to have appropriate signage, to provide that 
the Department of Consumer Assurance will confirm the 
accuracy of revenue control equipment, and to provide for 
criminal or civil penalties for violations. 

According to Ms. Margaret Baumgartner of the City 
Attorney's Office, the proposed ordinance would add new 
Sections 4901 through 4914 to the San Francisco Police 
Code which would: 

• Define terms relevant to parking lots. 

• Require all parking lots to have revenue control 
equipment (see Comment 1 for exemptions) that 
provides a receipt to consumers and is capable of 
producing particular types of audit reports within 90 
days of the enactment of the proposed ordinance. 

• Require the Department of Consumer Assurance 
(DCA) to inspect the revenue control equipment to 
ensure that it is functioning accurately. 

• Require all parking lot operators to notify the DCA 
when the revenue control equipment is not functioning 
at all, within 24 hours of the time the equipment stops 
functioning. 

• Require all parking lot operators to post a sign that 
clearly states to contact the District Attorney's 



1 San Francisco Business and Tax Regulations Code Article 9 states that parking stations include 
but are not limited to (1) Any outdoor space or uncovered plot, place, lot, parcel, yard or enclosure, or 
any portion thereof, where motor vehicles may be parked, stored, housed or kept, for which any 
charge is made; (2) Any building or structure, or any portion thereof in which motor vehicles may be 
parked, stored, housed or kept, for which any charge is made. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Consumer Protection Unit if the equipment is not 
operating or if the customer does not receive a receipt. 

• Require all parking lot operators to retain parking 
vouchers (receipts) issued and returned by a customer 
for a period of five years and such vouchers must be 
presented to any City auditor immediately upon 
request. 

• Make violations of the proposed ordinance a 
misdemeanor. 

• Permit consumers to bring civil action against parking 
lot operators for failure to provide a receipt. 

Ms. Baumgartner advises that the purpose of the 
proposed ordinance is to ensure that the City obtain the 
Parking Tax Revenue to which it is entitled under the 
City's Business and Tax code from persons operating 
parking lots in the City and to protect consumers by 
requiring the provision of a receipt. 



Comments: Section 4902. Exemptions 



1. The proposed ordinance would apply to all parking lots 
except where (1) no rent is charged at any time; (2) all 
rent is paid by the deposit in a parking meter owned and 
operated by the City and County; (3) all rent is paid for by 
a resident or guest of a hotel or motel by adding rent 
(parking fees) to the room bill of the registered guest; (4) 
occupants pay (parking fees) rent only for special events 
and on 75 or fewer days during a calendar year; and, (5) 
the operator is a governmental agency. 

According to the Deputy Tax Administrator, Ms. Ayisha 
Benham, there are 614 parking lots currently registered 
with the Tax Collector. However, as of the writing of this 
report, Ms. Benham is unable to determine how many of 
the 614 parking lots would be exempt from the proposed 
ordinance. Currently, the Parking Tax rate is 25 percent 
of all parking fees. This tax rate is comprised of a 15 
percent base rate and a ten percent surcharge. Section 
615 of Article 9 (Tax on Occupancy of Parking Space in 
Parking Stations) of Part III of the San Francisco 
Business and Tax Regulations Code states that the 
Parking Tax monies collected from the 15 percent base 
Parking Tax rate are to be used for the following 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



purposes: (a) the administration of Article 9 not to exceed 
4 percent of the total amount collected, (b) refunds of 
overpayments of the tax imposed, (c) 66 2/3 percent of the 
balance of the monies collected is allocated to the 
Municipal Transportation Agency (MUNI), and, (d) 33 1/3 
percent of the balance of the monies collected is used 
exclusively for senior citizens' programs. All the Parking 
Tax proceeds from the 10 percent Parking Tax Surcharges 
are dedicated to the General Fund. 

As shown in the FY 2000-2001 Annual Appropriation 
Ordinance previously approved by the Board of 
Supervisors, budgeted Parking Tax revenues total 
$51,442,000, including $10,288,000 allocated for senior 
citizen programs, $20,577,000 allocated to MUNI and 
$20,577,000 allotted to the General Fund. 

Section 4903. Revenue Control Equipment: 

2. Section 4903 requires that the revenue control 
equipment remain in operation during the parking lot's 
business hours. The proposed ordinance also requires 
that the equipment provide legible receipts to customers, 
which includes (1) information on the time and date of the 
transaction; (2) amount paid; (3) parking facility address; 
(4) City business license number; (5) vehicle hcense 
number or stall number; (6) non-resettable unique 
transaction number, and, (7) the business telephone and 
address of the person responsible for addressing consumer 
complaints. Ms. Laurel Pallock from the District 
Attorney's Office (DA) states that the proposed ordinance 
does not specify which model type or manufacturer of the 
revenue control equipment that parking lot operators 
must install. 

Section 4903 permits parking lot operators to continue to 
operate their business when revenue control equipment is 
not functioning provided that the operator (1) maintains 
manual revenue control procedures; (2) does not tow 
vehicles during that time period, and (3) the operator 
makes a good faith effort to have a State-licensed repair 
person repair the equipment as soon as possible. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

9 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Section 4904. Department of Consumer Assurance: 

3. Section 4904 of the proposed ordinance requires the 
DCA to ensure that all parking revenue control 
equipment devices are functioning accurately. According 
to Mr. Sid Baker at the DCA, the DCA would inspect the 
revenue control equipment at each parking lot annually 
for accuracy, which would include ensuring that the 
machine's time clock is correct, the receipts are legible 
and printed with the required information and that the 
charges are correct. Mr. Baker further states that once 
the equipment has been measured for accuracy, a DCA 
inspector would place either a State or County seal on the 
equipment, depending on the type of equipment utilized. 
Under the proposed ordinance, the DCA would charge the 
parking lot operators an annual equipment registration 
fee to help partially offset the costs of inspecting the 
equipment, plus an estimated hourly rate of 
approximately $77 per hour, if the inspection takes longer 
than one hour to conduct. Mr. Baker states that the 
equipment registration fee schedule is stipulated in the 
California Business and Professions Code, Section 12240. 
Section 12240 fee charges are as follows: 



Number of Pai 


rking 


Revenue 




Control Equipment 


Devices 


Annual Charge 


per Location 






per Location 


1 to 3 






$ 40 


4 to 9 






80 


10 to 19 






120 


20 to 25 






160 


Over 25 






200 



Ms. Pallock advises that at a minimum, there would be 
one device located at each parking lot to generate the 
required information under the proposed ordinance. If, 
for example, there are at least 1 to 3 parking revenue 
control devices at each of the approximately 614 
registered parking lots, then the annual registration fee 
would generate approximately $24,560 per year ($40 x 
614 registered parking lots). 

Mr. Baker states that the time required by DCA to test 
the revenue control equipment for accuracy of time 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



measurement and parking fee computations depends on 
the type of equipment in use. Mr. Baker also advises that 
testing the accuracy of the equipment's time 
measurement and parking fee computations would 
require tests to extend through two to three time periods 
on the same inspection day to obtain enough information 
to determine the equipment's accuracy. Mr. Baker states 
that until the DCA conducts its first round of equipment 
inspections he is unable to fairly estimate how much time 
would be required to inspect the parking revenue control 
equipment. 

According to Mr. Dave Frieders, Director of the DCA, the 
DCA would need to re-inspect parking revenue control 
equipment when DCA has been informed that the 
equipment is not functioning, in order to verify the 
accuracy of the equipment. According to Mr. Baker, the 
DCA would charge the parking lot operator approximately 
$77 per hour to inspect the equipment, which would offset 
the costs of such inspections. 

Mr. Baker advises that the DCA does not currently have 
sufficient enough inspectors to conduct the additional 
inspections that would be required under the proposed 
ordinance. Presently, the DCA has 2 6220 Weights and 
Measures Inspectors, 3 6218 Agriculture/Weights and 
Measures Trainees, and 1 6218 Agriculture/Weights and 
Measures Trainee on work-order for the Department of 
Health, all of which work on seven Weights and Measure 
programs. In addition to these six existing positions, Mr. 
Baker advises that the DCA would need to hire, at a 
minimum, six additional positions including five new 
6220 Weights and Measures Inspectors to conduct the 
inspections and one 1630 Account Clerk to support the 
Weights and Measure Inspectors at an estimated annual 
salary and fringe benefit cost of approximately $446,000. 
According to Mr. Frieders, such costs would be partially 
offset by the revenue generated from the equipment 
registration fees and the hourly inspection fees. Mr. 
Frieders states that if the proposed ordinance is approved, 
the DCA would request these six additional positions in 
DCAs FY 2001-2002 budget. As of the writing of this 
report, none of these positions have been included in the 
DCAs FY 2001-2002 budget request. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Additionally, the DCA estimates that there will be one- 
time start up costs of approximately $165,000 for 
equipment and vehicles DCA anticipates it will need to 
conduct the inspections. Attachment I, provided by the 
DCA cites the additional estimated costs which DCA 
believes it will need to implement this ordinance. 

Section 4909. Criminal Penalties: 

4. Section 4909 states that it shall be a misdemeanor to 
violate any of the provisions in the proposed ordinance 
and that if the DA has evidence that a person tampered 
with the required revenue control equipment in order to 
defraud the City, the DA may charge that person with the 
appropriate violations of State law. According to Ms. 
Pallock, the DAs Office currently has sufficient budget 
resources to prosecute any additional misdemeanors, 
based on her estimate that there would be few violations 
as a result of the proposed ordinance. 

Section 4910. Civil Penalties: 

5. Section 4910 states that any parking lot occupant may 
bring action against any parking lot operator that fails to 
provide a receipt, as required under the proposed 
ordinance. Additionally, Section 4910 permits the City 
and County of San Francisco to initiate civil action 
against a person to compel compliance or to enjoin 
violations of the proposed ordinance. If the City prevails 
in such action, it may recover court costs, reasonable 
attorney's fees and a civil penalty of up to $2,500 per 
violation. 

6. According to the Tax Administrator Mr. George Putris, 
the proposed ordinance may enhance the Tax Collector's 
ability to audit parking lots because the audit reports 
required under the proposed ordinance would be an 
additional tool to determine the amount of Parking Taxes 
that should have been paid to the City. Mr. Mark 
Buckley from the Tax Collector's Business Tax Division 
notes that it is difficult to estimate the amount of any 
additional Parking Tax revenues that the proposed 
ordinance would generate. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

7. The proposed ordinance would become effective 90 
days after the final adoption by the Board of Supervisors. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for 

the Board of Supervisors. 






BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET^ ANALYST 



03/22/2881 17:81 2859776 



PAGE 82 




CASF 



Department qe 

Consumer 

ASSURANCE 

REGULATORY COMPLIANCE 
AND AGRICULTURAL STANDARDS 

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY 



Attachment I 
Page 1. of 2 

DAVID C. FBtrctBS 
510 BAKER 

A&SlSTAKJ-OlttCTOl 



Memorandum 




Maureen Singleton 
Budget Analyst 

David C. Frieders 
Director 

Parking Revenue Control Ordinance Costs 



The parameters of the ordinance have expanded and will require increased personnel because 
of the number of inspections required to inspect parking revenue collection stations on a 
continuous monthly/annual program. Based upon the recommendation of the District Attorney's 
Office and the Parking Authority, the Department requests five (5) 6220 Inspector of Weights 
2nd Measures and one (1) 1630 Account Clerk. 

The preliminary annual expenditure increase to our budget is $446,000 per year, to be 
recouped from revenue loss recovery by the new system. In addition, a one-time start up cost 
of $165,000 is anticipated for equipment and vehicles. The funding for this program should be 
designated to come from general fund support. The device registration fee of $40 should be 
retained. 

If you need additional information, please call me at 285-5010. 



File: PrkingRevContr05a.doc 



AG*ICUim«Al. 

IT* MOODS WVISION 

S01 CESAS CKAVtZ. SUITE 109 A 

SAN F1ANC5CQ CA 94.124 

MONii (415) S2i-o!00 

FAX: (415) 285-8776 



AX1HAHV MAJUCnS WVKtON 
100 ALEMAKY SCH.l£VA£D 
S*N FRANCSCQ. CA 941 10 
PHONE: [415) 447. 9433 
FAX: [4151 643-95 U 



**OUUkTO*T OOAVUANCI 
WOGHTS AMD hUASUUS CVtSK*! 
501 CESAH OHAVEZ. SUITE 'C9A 
SAN FVANOSCO, CA 941 Z4 
PHONE^ (4IJ| 834-4100 
FAX. |41S| 285-8776 



14 



03/22/2001 17:01 285877S BA „_ 

PAGE 83 

' . Attachment I 

Page 2 of 2 

Start up Costs: - $165,000 

5 Vehicles - ($20,700 x 5) = $103,500 

5 Laptop Computers w/printer ($1 ,000 x 5) = $5,000 

1 PC with software $1 ,300 

5 Cubicles & chairs ($3,000 x 6) = $1 8,000 

Cabling - $2,000 

ISD/Program- $12,000 

Forms/Vouchers - $1 ,500 

Cell Phone/Pagers ($100 x 5) = $500 

Miscellaneous supplies - $250 



15 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 3 - File 01-0507 

Item: This is a hearing to consider declaring March 31 st , the birthday of 

Cesar Chavez an official City holiday. 

Description: The fiscal impact of adding one additional official City holiday 
would result from increased expenditure requirements resulting 
from certain City employees, who staff functions including public 
safety (Fire and Police), Public Health (i.e. San Francisco General 
Hospital and Laguna Honda Hospital) Emergency 
Communications, Department of Public Works (DPW) and the 
Municipal Railway (MUNI). Such departments operate on a 24 hour 
per day and/or seven day per week basis and certain of their 
employees must be paid Holiday Pay, at overtime rates, when they 
work on an official City holiday. 

The attachment to this report is an analysis of estimated increased 
salary and fringe benefit costs prepared by the Controller's Office. 
The Controller's analysis results in an estimate of total increased 
annual City-wide out-of-pocket expenditures of $4,344,718 at 
current rates of pay. Of this total, the estimated increased annual 
cost to the General Fund is $3,000,276. 

The Controller's estimate employs the following assumptions: 

• The estimate is based on the total salary budget for 
departments with primarily 24 hour per day and seven 
day per week operations. An estimated 15,953 full 
time equivalent positions were included in the 
Controller analysis. Not all staff in these departments 
are required to work on a holiday, but some staff of 
other operations (e.g. Water, Airport) would be 
required to work on a holiday but these latter two 
departments were not included in the Controller's 
analysis. The Controller believes that overall these 
factors would offset one another. 

• The cost of one holiday may vary depending on which 
day of the week that the holiday is observed. For 
example, Muni service levels are different on New 
Year's Day and Veteran's Day when more businesses 
are open. 

• Salary amounts are based on FY 2001-2002 base 
budget amounts and exclude premiums, overtime, and 
holiday pay. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

16 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

• Only Fringe benefits that are based on wages 
(retirement, social security, unemployment) would be 
added to the cost. Health benefits are not included. 
The fringe benefit rates used are based on the FY 
2001-2002 base budget amount. 

Comment: The Controller's estimate does not consider the fiscal impact 
pertaining to the cost of lost productivity for personnel who are not 
required to staff functions on a 24 hour per day and/or seven day 
per week basis, but who would receive one additional holiday. In 
addition to the 15,953 full time equivalent positions used by the 
Controller in 24-hour day seven days per week operations, the City 
has an additional 12,707 full time equivalent positions (FTEs) for a 
total of 28,660 FTEs. 

The estimated annual cost of lost productivity for the additional 
12,707 positions, as a result of adding one additional holiday, is 
$2,023,506 (the average pay per day at straight time rates for these 
positions) including $916,400 to the General Fund based on known 
2001-2002 rates of pay and fringe benefits. 

When including all 28,660 City positions, the Budget Analyst 
estimates the total fiscal impact of adding one additional holiday 
would cost the City $6,368,224 annually including $4,344,718 for 
those personnel who would be required to work on a holiday at 
overtime rates and $2,023,506 from lost productivity for those 
personnel who receive one additional holiday. Of this total amount 
of $6,368,224, $3,916,676 annually would represent the cost to the 
General Fund including $3,000,276 for those personnel who would 
be required to work on a holiday at overtime rates and $916,400 
from lost productivity. 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 
17 



Attachment 



Estimated Impact of One Holiday 



Department: 1 



Title 



"■■:> General Fund 
- ; . Supported T 
>■'} " Subfunds' ':.- : -h 



'AIIFiihds^^ 



DPT 


Muni 


DPW 


DPW (Street & Sewer Repair only) 


ECD 


Emergency Communications 


FIR 


Fire 


HCN 


Community Health Network 


HPH 


Public Health 


POL 


Police 


SHF 


Sheriff 


Total Salaries 






Estimated OT to fill behind one day 




Fringes 




Total 



1,774,460 

8,989,769 

116,959,349 

264,632,270 

61,939,760 

152,392,003 

41,643,113 



216,706 

6,981 

9,662 

125,888 

269,460 

80,010 

177,210 

47,835 



108 
896 
458 
121 
163 
t 525 
,119 
,626 



648,330,724 


933,755,016 


2,664,373 


3,837,349 


335,903 


507,369 



3,000,276 



4,344,718 



Notes: 

(1) This high level estimate assumes that shifts regularly scheduled at straight time will have to be paid at time 
and one half to fill behind the regularly scheduled employees who are observing the new holiday. 

(2) This estimate is based on the total salary budget for departments with primarily 24 hour/7 day operations. 
Not all staff in these departments is required to work on a holiday, but some staff of other operations 
(e.g. Water, Airport) would be required. We have assumed that these would roughly offset each other. 

(3) The cost of one holiday may vary depending on the service level being provided. For example, Muni 
service levels are different on New Year's Day and than it is on Veterans Day when more businesses are open. 

(4) This estimate does not consider the cost of lost productivity for non-essential personnel. 

(5) Salary amounts are the FY 2002 base budget amounts and exclude premiums, overtime, and holiday pay. 

(6) Fringe benefits are those based on wages (retirement, social security, unemployment). The rate used 
is based on the FY 2002 base budget amount. 



Source: Controller's Office; 3/22/01 



18 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 4 - File 01-0146 

Note This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
February 14, 2001. 



Department: 
Item: 



Location: 
Purpose of Lease: 



Lessor: 
Lessee: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Department of Administrative Services, Real Estate Division (RED) 

Resolution authorizing a new lease of space currently 
occupied by the City on a month-to-month basis under the 
provisions of a prior lease at 1360 Mission Street for a term 
of three years commencing retroactively to July 1, 2000 at an 
initial monthly rent of $8,000 per month for the Employee 
Assistance Program of the Department of Public Health 

1360 Mission Street, fourth floor 

To provide space for the Department of Pub he Health's 
Employee Assistance Program, which has been located in the 
same space at 1360 Mission Street since 1990. The Employee 
Assistance Program is currently on a month-to-month lease 
as set forth in a holdover provision in the prior lease. The 
Employee Assistance Program provides counseling to City 
employees on personal issues affecting their ability to work. 

VILO Properties, Inc. 

City and County of San Francisco 



No. of Sq. Ft. and 

Cost Per Month: 2,911 square feet at approximately $2.75 per square foot per 
month. The rent would be subject to an annual increase of 
five percent each year over the three-year term of the lease. 



Cost: 

Increase in Cost: 



$8,000 monthly, or $96,000 annually 

Under the prior lease, which expired July 1, 2000, the City 
paid a monthly rent of $3,847, or $46,164 annually. That 
lease agreement contained a provision stating that rent 
during a month-to-month holdover period would be charged 
at 150 percent of the previous rent. Thus, the rent increased 
as of June 30, 2000 from approximately $3,847 per month, or 
$1.32 per square foot per month to $5,770 per month or $1.98 
per square foot per month, or 150 percent of the prior rental 
rate. The City has been paying this increased rental rate of 
$5,770 per month since July 1, 2000. Under the proposed 
lease, the rent would increase by an additional $2,230 per 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Term of Lease: 

Utilities and 
Services: 



Right of Renewal: 



month or $0.77 per square foot, or by 38.6 percent, from the 
previous holdover rent of $5,770 per month, or $1.98 per 
square foot, to $8,000 per month, or $2.75 per square foot. 
The prior 10 year and three month lease began on April 1, 
1990 and ended June 30, 2000. 

July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2003 (three years). 



Landlord to pay for all utilities and services, including 
janitorial and maintenance services. 

Two three-year options to renew after the expiration of the 
initial term of the three-year lease, with the rent to be set at 
95% of the market rate 1 . 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Comments: 



DPH's FY 2000-2001 budget, as previously approved by the 
Board of Supervisors. 

According to Ms. Judy Schutzman of DPH, the proposed 
leased premises would continue to be occupied by a total of 
six staff members of the DPH Employee Assistance Program. 
These six staff members provide free individual and group 
counseling to employees of the City and County of San 
Francisco for personal issues that effect their ability to work. 
Counseling includes topics such as communication and 
conflict resolution, anger management, stress management, 
separation and divorce, balancing work and family issues, 
and dealing with difficult people. 

1. According to Ms. Schutzman, approximately 30 percent or 
873 of the 2,911 square foot office at 1360 Mission Street is 
made up of individual and group counseling areas used to 
service clients of the Employee Assistance Program. 
Additionally, the Employee Assistance Program currently 
employs one full time consultant, and typically has between 
one and four interns working at 1360 Mission space at any 
given time. The balance of approximately 70 percent or 2,038 



1 The prevailing market rate would be determined pursuant to a provision in the subject proposed 
lease that would require that (1) the landlord propose a rate as the prevailing market rate, (2) the 
City make a counter-proposal if the proposed rate is not agreeable, (3) if no agreement is reached, 
both parties meet no less than twice to attempt to resolve any disagreement, and (4) if disagreements 
are not' resolved, both parties participate in a process to select a neutral appraiser, whose appraisal 
would then be considered the prevailing market rate. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



square feet of space is typically occupied by eight to 11 
employees, providing an average of approximately 185 to 255 
square feet per employee. 

2. Mr. Alms advises that since the proposed rental rate of 
$2.75 per square foot was negotiated in October of 2000, the 
commercial real estate market has softened somewhat. 
However Mr. Alms advises that the proposed rental rate of 
$2.75 is still considered equal to or below current fair market 
value which Mr. Alms estimates to be approximately $3.00 
per square foot per month. Mr. Alms notes that the second 
floor (the Employee Assistance Program is located on the 
fourth floor) in the subject building at 1360 Mission Street 
rented at a rate of approximately $3.50 per square foot per 
month as recently as November 15, 2000. According to Mr. 
Alms, the base rent of the second floor space is $3.00 per 
square foot per month. However, the tenants are required to 
pay utilities, janitorial services and maintenance services 
under that lease, which brings the cost of occupying the 
space on the second floor to approximately $3.50 per square 
foot per month, according to Mr. Alms, or $0.75 more than 
the proposed lease rental rate of $2.75. 

3. The lease period is retroactive to July 1, 2000, because 
the landlord, VILO Properties made the retroactive 
commencement date of July 1, 2000 a condition of entering 
into the lease agreement. Mr. Alms notes that negotiations 
over the proposed new lease commenced well before the end 
of the original lease on June 30, 2000. However a final 
agreement with the landlord was only reached in January of 
2001. 

4. Under the proposed lease, the City would be required to 
pay the lessor the difference between the current monthly 
rent of $5,770 and the proposed monthly rent of $8,000, an 
increase of 38.6 percent or $2,230, retroactive to July 1, 2000. 
If the proposed lease were approved by the Board of 
Supervisors and the Mayor on or about April 15, 2001, the 
City would be required to pay VILO Properties a total 
retroactive payment of approximately $21,185 ($2,230 
multiplied by nine and one-half months). 

5. The proposed lease includes a provision allowing the 
landlord to terminate the lease at any time after September 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



30, 2002 by providing the City with nine months notice. 
However, according to Mr. Alms, the landlord has orally 
stated to RED that early termination under the terms of this 
provision would be unlikely. 

6. The Attachment to this report is a memorandum by Mr. 
Anthony DeLucchi, Director of Property, in response to the 
concerns expressed by the Finance Committee regarding the 
proposed retroactive payment to the landlord (see Comment 
No. 4). Mr. DeLucchi states in his attached memorandum 
pertaining to discussions by his staff with the landlord, Mr. 
Victor Honig, "We requested that Mr. Honig waive the 
retroactive rent. . . Mr. Honig has respectfully declined,. . ." 
Mr. DeLucchi further states that "Mr. Honig indicates that 
he acted in good faith in reaching an agreement regarding a 
new, extended lease of the premises. In agreeing to a below - 
market rental rate, and consenting to a holdover rate that is 
even farther below market, he relied on the long-term 
relationship of trust established with the City over the 10 
years that the City has occupied 1360 Mission and other 
properties owned by VILO Properties. Mr. Honig indicates 
that, based on his long-term relationship with the City, he 
felt no extraordinary sense of urgency to complete the 
transaction. Further, Mr. Honig stated that he has a long 
history of supporting the City's need to provide low and very- 
low income housing. He has done so by making land 
available to Mercy Housing Corp. on terms that make such 
developments economically feasible. Mr. Honig indicates 
that VILO Properties has cooperated with Mercy Housing in 
connection with four San Francisco projects." 

7. As shown on the second page of his attached 
memorandum, Mr. DeLucchi reports that, with respect to the 
Consumer Price Index (CPI), "The CPI has increased since 
December of 1998 by between 4.84% and 5.03%, depending 
on the index." As previously noted, the proposed rental rate 
would be subject to an annual increase of five percent each 
year over the three-year term of the subject lease. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors since, without first obtaining Board of 
Supervisors approval: (a) DPH and the Real Estate Division 
are requesting approval of the proposed lease retroactive to 
July 1, 2000 and (b) such retroactivity results in the City 
being required to pay an increase of 38.6 increase in rent 
retroactive to July 1, 2000, resulting in a total estimated 
retroactive payment of $21,185 from July 1, 2000 through 
April 15, 2001. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



City and County of San Francisco 




Attachment 
Fage 1 ot 3 
Real Estate Divisic 
Administrative Services Departm 



MEMORANDUM 



March 12, 2001 



TO: Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Gonzalez 



FROM: Anthony J. DeLucchi 

Director of Property 







SUBJECT: 1360 Mission Street Lease 

Employee Assistance Program 
File No. 01-0146 



The Finance Committee is holding the above referenced matter at the Call of the Chair As reauested b I 
Committee, we have contacted the landlord, Mr. Victor Honig, President of VILO Properties to - 
modification to the terms of the proposed agreement. We requested that Mr. Honig waive the rem* I 

ana requests that the Committee consider the following: 

to Sef Tn t£S 22 ^ "^1^ S °° d ^^ ™ reaChiDS " agreem£nt «*"*** a new. extended lea . 
tne premises. In agreeing to a below-market rental rate, and consenting to a holdove- rate that is t 

^s^ZrZ^ ^ ^^^"S-tenn relationship of trust established with the City over* 1 
years that the City has occup.ed 1360 Mission and other properties owned by VTLO Properties Mr 

^tS'Sof long - term relationsWp " th the City - he felt no — di ^ — ° f «i» ; 

Further, Mr. Honig stated that he has a long history of supporting the City's need to provide low ar 
low income housing. He has done so by making land available to Mercy Housing Corp on terms th 
such developments economically feasible. Mr. Honig indicates that VILO Properties has coope- 
Mercy Housing in connection with four San Francisco projects. 



(415)554-9850 
FAX: (415) 552-9216 



25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 400 
2k 



SAX:\S3<£34&01O31O Untrue 

Office of the Director of Prop5 

San Francisco, CA 94 J* 



C\ 1_ l_CLV 



Page 2 of. 3 



In addition, Mr. Honig informs us that, subsequent to delivery of the signed copy of the proposed lease, 
VILO Properties has entered a master lease agreement for the subject building. This most recent transaction 
with Mercy Housing includes land slated for development of low and very-low income housing, and 
improved commercial property that Mercy will make available to San Francisco non-profits. 

Mr. Honig requests that the Finance Committee consider his efforts to support the housing and non-profit 
policies of the City, as well as the below market rate that he has accepted for the premises. 

In connection with the proposed lease, Supervisor Gonzalez requested a comparison of recent changes in 
the Consumer Price Index with the proposed 5 % per year fixed increase set forth in the proposed lease. 
The attached summary shows the changes in three different indexes that are commonly used in San 
Francisco real estate transactions. The CPI has increased since December of 1998 by between 4.84% 
and 5.03%, depending on the index. The recent trend in the rate of increase has been upward. 

If there is additional information that the Committee would like to receive before hearing the matter 
again, please contact me at 554-9875, or call Steve Alms of this office at 554-9865. 



cc: 



H. Rose 
M. Katz 
M. Zmuda 
J. Schutzman 



(413) 554-9850 
FAX;(41S)SS2-«ai« 



M Van Naaa Avanui, autt« 400 



Office of the Director of Property 
B*n ■ranelaeo, CA M102 



25 



COMPARISON 

CONSUMER PRJCE INDEX 

SOURCE: BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS 



Attachment 
Page 3 ot 3 



San Francisco, All Urban Consumers (Base Period: 1982-84 ■ 100) 
Index % Change 

December-98 167.4 

December-99 174.5 4.24% 

December-00 184.1 5.50% 



Average CPI Increase (12/98 - 12/00) 



4.99% 



San Francisco, AJI Urban Consumer* (Base Period: 1967 ■ 100) 



December-98 
December-99 
December-00 



Index 
514.0 
538.5 
5G3.8 



Average CPI Increase (12/98 - 12/00) 



% Change 

4.77% 
4.70% 

4.84% 



San Francisco, Urban Wage Earners & Clerical Workers (Base Period: 1967 = 100) 
Index % Change 



December-98 


498.8 




December-99 


520.3 


4.35% 


December-00 


548.8 


5.48% 



Average CPI Increase (12/98 - 12/00) 



5.C3% 



Finance Committee 
File No. 01-0148 



TQTfiL P. 23 



26 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 5 -File 01-0031 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Description: 



Emergency Communications Department (ECD) 

Hearing to consider the release of reserved funds in the 
amount of $4,500,000 for the Emergency Communications 
Department. 

$4,500,000 

In 1997, the Board of Supervisors appropriated and 
placed on reserve the subject $4,500,000 of E-911 
(Enhanced- 9 11) Project Funds, pending approval of 
legislation to increase the Emergency Response Fee, 
discussed further below under "Source of Funds." 

The Emergency Response Fee was originally established 
in 1993 to fund a portion of the E-911 Project costs. 
(Attachment I, provided by the Emergency 
Communications Department (ECD), contains a 
description of the E-911 Project). The purpose of the E- 
911 Project was to improve the City's emergency response 
capabilities by integrating the separate emergency 
response systems previously employed by three City 
Departments: the Fire Department, the Police 
Department and Medical Emergency Services, which was 
transferred in July of 1997 from the Department of Public 
Health to the Fire Department. In December of 1998, the 
City completed construction of a centrally located 
Combined Emergency Communications Center (CECC), 
located at 1011 Turk Street, to serve as a 911 
communications and dispatch center for Police, Fire, and 
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and an emergency 
command center. According to Ms. Anne Okubo of the 
ECD, the CECC first opened in December in 1998 and 
was occupied by ECD, after which EMS and the Fire 
Department joined the center in April of 2000 and the 
Police Department joined the center in November of 2000. 
In general, the work still remaining includes completion 
of the Police Automated Information System (AIS), as 
discussed in this File 01-0356 of this report to the Finance 
Committee, completion of the Metropolitan Area Network 
(MAN) and final testing of the 800 MHz radio system, as 
described in Attachment I. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Ms. Okubo advises that the E-911 project is expected to be 
completed by June 30, 2001. According to Ms. Okubo, 
total costs of the E-911 Project are estimated to be 
$166,370,000. The latest total cost estimate of 
$166,370,000 was made in 1997, according to Ms. Okubo, 
and was $34,419,000 more than the original estimate of 
$131,951,000 made in 1996. Attachment II, provided by 
ECD, explains why the budget for the E-911 project 
increased by $34,419,000, from $131,951,000 to 
$166,370,000. According to Ms. Okubo, ECD does not 
expect project costs to exceed $166,370,000, even though 
this estimate was made in 1997, as stated in Attachment 
II. 

Attachment III, also provided by ECD, contains a 
summary budget and the funding sources for the E-911 
Project. The $166,370,000 E-911 Project has been funded 
with $27,705,835 from Emergency Response Fees, 
$36,653,165 from the General Fund, $4,581,000 from 
Federal and State grants, and $97,430,000 in Lease 
Revenue Bond funds, as detailed in Attachment rV 
provided by ECD. The interest rates on these Lease 
Revenue Bonds range from 4.07 percent to 5.49 percent, 
according to Ms. Okubo. 

Attachment V contains ECD's Bond Debt Service 
Schedule for bond proceeds used to fund the E-911 
Project. As shown in Attachment V, the ECD is scheduled 
to make debt service payments through Fiscal Year 2023- 
2024, totaling $142,914,664 over the 27-year period 
(Fiscal Year 1997-1998 through Fiscal Year 2023-2024). 
The subject request to release $4,500,000 would be used 
to fund a portion of the total debt service payments of 
$142,914,664. 

Ms. Okubo advises that such debt service payments of 
$142,914,664 include $95,845,000 in principal payments 
and $47,069,664 in interest payments. Therefore, when 
such $47,069,664 in interest payments are added to the 
$166,370,000 estimated cost of the E-911 Project, the total 
estimated cost of the E-911 Project would be 
$213,439,664. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Ms. Okubo advises that ECD plans to fund approximately 
$72,294,165 of this $142,914,664 debt service with 
revenues from the Emergency Response Fee, including 
the subject $4,500,000, until such funds are fully 
expended, approximately in Fiscal Year 2006-2007. 
According to Ms. Okubo, at that time, ECD plans to 
request General Fund monies to fund the approximate 
$70,620,499 balance of the debt service ($142,914,664 less 
the $72,294,165 to be funded with Emergency Response 
Fee revenues). 



Source of Funds: E-911 (Enhanced-911) Project Funds - Public Protection 
Special Revenue Funds placed on reserve in August of 
1997 

The E-911 Project Fund is the repository for funds 
collected by the City from the Emergency Response Fee 
established by the Board of Supervisors in December of 
1993 to apply to eligible commercial and residential lines 
in San Francisco. The Emergency Response Fee was 
originally imposed at a rate of $0.50 per month per access 
line (in general, on each telephone number for residential 
and commercial users) and $2.50 per month per trunk 
line (in general, for larger commercial users). In 1997, the 
Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance (File No. 
127-97-1.1), which authorized a 100 percent increase in 
the Emergency Response Fee, bringing the Fee to its 
current level, from $0.50 per month to $1.00 per month 
for each eligible access line and from $2.50 to $5.00 per 
month for each eligible trunk line located in San 
Francisco. Ms. Okubo advises that the Fee increase was 
accompanied by an increase in the cap placed on total 
revenues that could be received by the City from the 
Emergency Response Fee from $60,000,000 to 
$100,000,000, an increase of $40,000,000 or 66.7 percent. 
Ms. Under the ordinance previously approved by the 
Board of Supervisors, when the City has received this 
total maximum amount of $100,000,000, the Emergency 
Response Fee will be eliminated. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Emergency Response 

Fee Revenue: According to Ms. Okubo, the current estimated monthly- 

revenue from the Emergency Response Fee is $1,000,000, 
or $12,000,000 annually. Ms. Okubo reports that ECD 
collected $1,478,777 in Fee revenues during February of 
2001. Ms. Okubo advises that as of March 21, 2001, total 
revenue collected from the Emergency Response Fee was 
$55.8 million, resulting in an average monthly revenue of 
$641,379 over the seven years and three months (or 87 
months) the Fee has been in place. As stated previously, 
the Emergency Response Fee will expire when the City 
has collected $100,000,000 in fees. Based on current 
average revenues collected of $1,000,000 per month, the 
ECD anticipates that the City will reach this maximum 
amount of $100,000,000 in approximately December of 
2004. 

Recommendation: Approve the requested release of reserved funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 




Page 1 of 
Emergency Communications Department 
1011 Turk Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 
(415) 558-3800 Fax (415) 558-3841 




llie L. Brown, Jr. Mayor 



Thera Bradshaw, Director 



MEMORANDUM 

TO: Harvey Rose 

Budget Analyst 

FROM: Anne Okubo 

Director of Finance and Administration 

DATE: March 13, 2001 

RE: Summary of 911 Project 

This memo is in response to your request for background information on the 91 1 Project. 

Summary of 91 1 Project 

The 911 project built the combined emergency communications center and consolidated 911 operations 

for Police, Fire, EMS and public safety dispatch at one site. Project components include: 

• Construction of the combined emergency communications center (CECC); 

• Acquisition and installation of 91 1 dispatch and communications equipment; and 

• Acquisition and installation of a Citywide 800 MHz emergency radio system. 

The 911 project is a combined effort of the Fire, Police, DTIS and the Emergency Communications 
Department. 

Description of Project Components 

The components of the 911 project are as follows: 

• CECC - two story, seismic base-isolated facility located at 1011 Turk St, housing 91 1 dispatch 
operations, the Mayor's Office of Emergency Services and the City's Emergency Operations Center. 

• 911 Equipment - consisting of a Computer Aided Dispatch System and Automated Information 
System (C AD/AIS), Wide Area Network and Local Area Network (WAN/LAN), communications 
systems connecting fire and police stations to the 91 1 center, public safety network, metropolitan 
area network, 91 1 center wiring, PBX telephone equipment, public safety answering point 
equipment (PS AP) and mobile data terminals. 

• 800 MHz Radio System - consists of an 8 site, 23 channel 800 MHz simulcast radio system located 
in the City and surrounding areas included renovation of the City's Telecommunications 
Maintenance Facility at 901 Rankin Street. Also includes a 5-channel wireless data network and 
metropolitan area network (WDN/MAN) providing high speed data communications from 
CAD/AIS to Police, Fire/EMS mobile data terminals. 



C'.WNDOWSNPHOnLE^ENEUMANMOESKTOrESTA SEMANAVECD RESE»VIS\SUMMAAY OF E.9I I DOCOJCO/OI 

PRJNTEO ON RECYCLED PAPER 



rn_ oeLdimtiUl. 




Page 1 of 
Emergency Communications Department 
101 1 Turk Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 
(415)558-3800 Fax (415) 558-3841 







R*rirP72?rr«n 



Willie L. Brown, Jr. Mayor 



Thera Bradshaw, Director 



TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 



MEMORANDUM 

Harvey Rose 
Budget Analyst 

Anne Okubo 

Director of Finance and Administration 



March 13, 2001 



RE: Summary of 911 Project 

This memo is in response to your request for background information on the 91 1 Project. 

Summary of 91 1 Project 

The 91 1 project built the combined emergency communications center and consolidated 91 1 operations 

for Police, Fire, EMS and public safety dispatch at one site. Project components include: 

• Construction of the combined emergency communications center (CECC); 

• Acquisition and installation of 91 1 dispatch and communications equipment; and 

• Acquisition and installation of a Citywide 800 MHz emergency radio system. 

The 911 project is a combined effort of the Fire, Police, DTIS and the Emergency Communications 
Department. 

Description of Project Components 

The components of the 911 project are as follows: 

• CECC - two story, seismic base-isolated facility located at 1011 Turk St, housing 91 1 dispatch 
operations, the Mayor's Office of Emergency Services and the City's Emergency Operations Center. 

• 911 Equipment - consisting of a Computer Aided Dispatch System and Automated Information 
System (CAD/AIS), Wide Area Network and Local Area Network (WAN/LAN), communications 
systems connecting fire and police stations to the 91 1 center, public safety network, metropolitan 
area network, 911 center wiring, PBX telephone equipment, public safety answering point 
equipment (PS AP) and mobile data terminals. 

• 800 MHz Radio System - consists of an 8 site, 23 channel 800 MHz simulcast radio system located 
in the City and surrounding areas included renovation of the City's Telecommunications 
Maintenance Facility at 901 Rankin Street. Also includes a 5-channel wireless data network and 
metropolitan area network (WDN/MAN) providing high speed data communications from 
CAD/AIS to Police, Fire/EMS mobile data terminals. 



C 'WTNDOwS^iOnLE^ENELVAWOESKTorESTA Semana'.ECD R£JE«vTJ\Suvima*y Of E-51 1 OOCOVtOiOl 
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 



32 



Pagfc J 

Status of the 91 1 Project 

Most components of the 91 1 project are completed or in the final stages of completion. To date the 

status of the 91 1 project is as follows: 

• Construction of the CECC is complete. Construction of the community center adjacent to 101 1 Turk 
is underway. This is a co mm unity project to mitigate the impact of the new CECC. 

• Acquisition and installation of 91 1 equipment is complete. The CAD is currently in operation and 
final acceptance of the system is underway. The Fire AIS has been accepted. The Police AIS is 
currently undergoing system testing. 

• Acquisition and installation of 800 MHz radio system is complete. Final system testing and 
acceptance is expected to be complete in spring 2001. 

• Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) - not complete. ECD and DTIS are finalizing plans for the 
MAN. An interim system is currently in operation pending implementation of the MAN. 

The major milestones of the project are: 

• Completion of CECC -December 1998 

• Fire dispatch cutover - April 2000 

• Police dispatch cutover - November 2000 



33 




Willie L. Brown, Jr. Mayor 



Page 1 of 2 

Emergency Communications Department 

101 1 Turk Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 

(415)558-3800 Fax (415) 558-3841 




Thera Bradshaw, Director 



Date: 
To: 



March 21, 2001 

Harvey Rose 
Budget Analyst 



MEMORANDUM 



From: Anne Okubo 

Director of Finance & Administration 

Subject: Reserve Funds - 911 Project Budget 



This memo is in response to your request for information regarding the budget for the 91 1 project. 

911 Project Budget 

The budget for the 911 project was $132.0 million (1996) and later revised to S166.4 million (1997) as 

follows: 



Original Budget 

800 MHz Radio S 58,066,000 

Automated Information System 10,200,000 

Computer Aided Dispatch 4,500,000 

E-911 Project Management 4,210,000 

CECC Facility 24,273,000 

Communications/Telephony/Support Systems 11,125,000 

Other Costs 19.577.000 

Total 5 131,951,000 



Revised Budget 

$ 58,066,000 

10,818,000 

20,873,000 

9,926,000 

25,274,000 

17,207,000 

24.206.000 

S 166,370,000 



The budget for the project was revised from SI 32.0 million to SI 66.4 million as a result of a study by 
Fluor Daniel that reviewed cost estimates, project schedules, and technological requirements of the 
project. The study concluded that changes in technology for the 800 MHz radio system, CAD/AIS 
revisions to accommodate user needs (Police, Fire/EMS), and other communications system requirements 
would result in revised budget estimates for the project. The revised budget for the 91 1 project (S166.4 
million) is based on current actual costs. 

The Emergency Communications Department does not expect actual expenditures to exceed the SI 66.7 
million budget on the 91 1 project. 

Use of Emergency Response Fee 

The Emergency Response Fee (ERF) will be used to fund 911 project costs (S27.7 million) as well as debt 
service on bonds (S72.3 million) that fund the 91 1 project. The Emergency Response Fee, per the 
ordinance, will sunset when up to SI 00 million is collected. 



C:\WINDOWS\Profiles\ENeumann\DesictopVEsta SemanaNECD Reserves\R£viseo Overbudcet memo doc 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 3^ 



i^age z or z 

Release of Reserve 

The Emergency Communications Department (ECD) is requesting release of funds held on reserve as a 
source of revenue to fund future debt service. Total debt service in the current fiscal year is $8.8 million. 
Debt service will increase to $1 1.6 million in the next fiscal year. To date, the 91 1 project has had 
sufficient funding from the ERF as well as other sources. However, given that debt service is increasing, 
ECD would like to request release of these funds held on reserve. 

If you have any questions, please call me at 558-3866. 
cc: Thera Bradshaw 



35 



Attachment III 



O WB M 



fc. 

o 

CO 

W 

U 

S 
o 



"I 



i— •• O O 



s: s 

2i a 







| 














8 






o 
'■5 




i 




.= 








c 


| 






cc 




e 




a 






>.= 


.c. 


C 










E 

2 




-5 




1 
E 


Ss 


Ul 


■3 






_£ 








-5 






E-2 

— « 


^§ 


~ 




























.2 


_ 


I 

a 
< 




a 




II 


c 5 

3 | 

5 5 
UU 


c 
U 


3 


M 




s 

o 
S 


--. 


<^ 


3 
U 


< 


I 


c 3 


£ 


J- 



36 




iHie L. Brown, Jr. Mayor 



Actacnmenc 



IV 



Pa 



= r 

.ent 



Emergency Communications Dep 
1011 Turk Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 
(415) 558-3800 Fax (415) 558-3841 




Thera Bradshaw, Director 



MEMORANDUM 
Date: February 12, 2001 

To: Harvey Rose 

Budget Analyst 

From: Anne Okubo 

Director of Finance & Administration 

Subject: Reserve Funds - Emergency Response Fee 



This memo is in response to your request for information regarding the request to release $4.5 million in 
funds held in reserve from the Emergency Response Fee. 

Use of Reserve Funds 

Funds held on reserve are $4.5 million in revenue derived from the Emergency Response Fee. Revenues 
from the fee are projected to be $12 million in the current fiscal year and are expected to remain at this 
level in the next fiscal year. 

Revenues held on reserve will be used to fund future expenditures for debt service. Total debt service for 
the Emergency Communications Department (ECD) in the current fiscal year is $8.8 million. Debt service 
will increase to $1 1.6 million in the next fiscal year as indicated on the attached debt service schedules. 

Projects Funded by Bond Funds 

Four bond series were used to fund projects for the Emergency Communications Center. These funds and 

their projects are: 

• Series 1997 - Combined Emergency Communications Center (CECC) 

• Project: Construction of the Emergency Communications Center. 

• Cost: $22,635,000 

• Project status: Completed 

• Series 1998 - Combined Emergency Communications System Equipment 

• Project: Equipment for CECC including hardware for networks, servers, workstations, printers and 
other equipment necessary for the 91 1 Information and Communications System for call 
origination and dispatch. 

• Cost: $23,295,000 

• Project status: Complete with the exception of the Metropolitan Area Network (MAN). The ECD 
and DTIS are finalizing plans for the MAN. An interim system is currently in operation pending 
implementation of the permanent MAN. 



C:\WINDOWSvProfiles\ENeumann\Desktop\Esta, Semana\ECD R£serves\R£SErve memo. doc 
printed on recycled paper 37 



fage Zot 2 

• Series 1998-1 & Series 1999-1 - Citywide Emergency Radio System 

• Project: Acquisition and installation of a Citywide Emergency Radio System (800 MHz) including 
voice communications and a wireless data network. 

• Cost: $49,915,000 

• Project status: On schedule with the exception of the MAN (as indicated above). Final acquisition 
of the last component of the 800 MHz Radio System is expected in Spring 2001. 

If you have any questions, please call me at 558-3866. 

Attachment 

cc: Thera Bradshaw 



38 



Attachment V 



a 



o 
co 


o 


OS 

CD 


CD 
CM 


CD 
CM 


CO 

CM 


CD 
CM 


CD 
CM 


CD 


o 


LO 


o 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 
CM 


o 

o 


O 

o 


o 
o 


O 

a 


O 

o 


o 
o 


o 

CD 


o 
O 


O 

o 


O 

o 


O 

o 


lo 


o 

CM 
CO 


CD 

o 

CO 


LO 


CD 

CO 


CD 

O 


CD 
CD 
CO 


CD 

CD 


co 

CO 


LO 

cs 


r- 


o 
en 


CO 
CD 

CD 


co 

CD 


co 

CD 

CD 


-c 


m 

LO 

CD 


LO 

as 


LO 
CD 
CD 


o 
t 

CD 


LO 
CO 


o 

as 


co- 
co 

LO 


o 

LO 
O 


o 

LO 

LO 


LO 
CM 
LO 


o 
o 


o 


co 
CM 

CD 


CM 


LO 

co 


m 

CM 

CD 


CO 
CD 


CM 

CM 
CO 


CD 


CD 

CD 


CO 
CO 
CM 


CD 

CO 

CM 


CD 
O 

co 


LO 

CD 


CO 
CD 


CM 


CM 


CD 
CO 
CD 


CM 

LO 
LO 


LO 

LO 


O 
CD 

LO 


CD 
LO 
LO 


CD 

as 


r- 


as 

o 


CO 

o 


CO 


as 
o 


T- 


CO 


co 


CO 


t- 


r- 


OS 


as 


as 


as 


as 


as 


T 


■c 


^r 


^r 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 















CM 

m 

CO 
CO 

cm" 

*3- 




Dinuswuimtnoo 

CO CM CM CM CM CM h~ O O 

r 1 (O t- r 1 r^ t^ CO IO lO lO U) W irf 113 

T-tSCNJCNOSNCOCOCOfrrCDCM 

nmsncMoiT-msssms 



o o o o 
O O O O 

CD o o o" o" o o o o o' cs 



CD |s- 

l>- r~- 



N- O CD CM 
N CO N N 

r- n- r-- r- 



r^ r-. r*. iv. r^. 



co 

CO 

CO* 
t-- 

^r 
o" 
en 
o 
Iff 

CM 



o 
E 
It 
co 
o. 

CO 

O 3 

CO "O 

C CD 

s-s 

co CO 



c 

CD 

E 
zz 
a 
o 
Q 

■a 
c 
o 
ca 

"5 

c 
"en 






CO CM CM 

"G- T- T- 

■<-_ n._ in 

cm" in" co" 
co co as 
co in in 




ooooooooooooooooooooooo 
in in in in in in o in in in in o o o_ o o o o o o o o o 

nnc\nnn wssVNiriddddddo'do'cio' 

T-i— T-i— T-T-cMco>-cj)CMcocDOinino 

as co f— a>_ co in co t co_ as_ co_ ■* o_ in r-~_ r~-_ in 

cm" co" r*-T in" co" co" co" in" «— co" o" o as" i— *- o" co" 

-^cocoLninasasasooooasoooa) 

■<3--<3-t— ftrooototDtoiDintototDus 

in" m" co" co" co" co" co" co" 



ocommmmmmmmmmooooooooooooooo 
oor^r^r^i^t^^r^t^h-^ioioininooooooooooo 
O CO CO co co' co co' co' CO CO CO cd cm' cm cm cm' o o o" OOOOOOOO 

feg-CDr^-^tv-N-I^.N-CDCD'T-CO — m-«M»c«e*ri 



OS_ <D_ TT ""T CM 

o >«r co" co" aT co" 



N-_ o>_ a>_ 

co" co" as" co co~ 

N O) O) CD O _ 

I s - CD_ CD^ CD_ h- r— h-_ N- 

cm" cm" cm" cm" cm" cm" cm" cm" cm" cm" 



o o 



T CO CM T 

r—_ co_ co_ r~-_ 

o" r*-" co" co" 

CO 



t-_ cq 
t" r--" 

COCOCOCOCOCMCMCMCMCM 



- 05 . 
CM CM_ TT CM_ 

t* as" co" cm" 



o o 
o o 



cocdcdcdcdcocdcdcdcdcdcdcdooooooooo 
n. r-- h- r— r— r^- r>- r*~ h- h- I*- r^- N o o o a [ O » O i O ; o o 
oaricdcocdcdcdedioodricotoiniooinooodioc) 
o-r-inincococMTr">3-cMCMco-r-r~-N-r-mcMOOinmcMo 

SSTl'(OlDO(DOtD'fl , '-0)tDro(D(DtDC1Nin'jmiOi- 
S-" I s *." r- co" of co" o" "i- " CT>" t-" t— N-" CM" Co" S (D O OS O) t- as" co" co" as" 
00'«-OOOt-t-Ot-t-0'<-OOOt-OOt-0000 



co 
co 

a> 

co- 
co 
co 
cm" 



CO 

O) 

co- 
in 

°l 
o" 
co 



o 

CO 

in 

CM_ 

o* 
co 



as o 

as o 

co cjs 

as a> 

as as 



in co s- co as o 

o o o o o i- 



MntmoNcomoT-cMniT 

T-T- t-T-T— t—T-r— CMCMCMCMCM 

o^cMco^incor^cocno-^cMcO'^-incor^-coasoT— cmco 

OOOOOOOOOO't-t-i-i^t-t-1— t-t-t-cMCMCMCM 

oooooooooooooooooooooooo 

CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM 



o 



Source: Emergency Communications Department 



39 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 6 - File 01-0356 



Department: Emergency Communications Department (ECD) 

Item: Resolution authorizing the E-911 Project Director to 

execute Modification No. 6 to an existing contract with 
TRW, Inc. (TRW) in the amount of $536,210 for computer- 
related services at the Combined Emergency 
Communications Center. 

Amount: $536,210 

Description: Since 1997, the City has been in the process of 

constructing and completing the E-911 Project in order to 
improve the City's emergency response capabilities by 
integrating the separate emergency response systems 
previously employed by the Fire Department, the Police 
Department and Emergency Medical Services (EMS). 
EMS was transferred in July of 1997 from the 
Department of Public Health to the Fire Department. In 
December of 1998, the City completed construction of a 
centrally located Combined Emergency Communications 
Center (CECC), located at 1011 Turk Street, to serve as a 
911 communications and dispatch center for Police, Fire, 
and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and an 
emergency command center. The total estimated cost of 
the E-911 Project is $166,370,000. Attachment I, provided 
by the Emergency Communications Department (ECD), 
contains a description of the E-911 Project and a 
summary budget, including funding sources. According to 
Ms. Anne Okubo of the ECD, the CECC first opened in 
December in 1998 and was occupied by ECD, after which 
EMS and the Fire Department joined the Center in April 
of 2000 and the Police Department joined the Center in 
November of 2000. Attachment I describes the status of 
the E-911 Project. Ms. Okubo advises that the E-911 
project is expected to be completed by June 30, 2001. In 
general, the work still remaining includes completion of 
the Police Automated Information System (AIS), as 
discussed in this report, completion of the Metropolitan 
Area Network (MAN) and final testing of the 800 MHz 
radio system, as described in Attachment I. 

As part of the process of integrating Police, Fire and 
Emergency Medical Services into a Combined Emergency 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Communications Center, in 1997 the Board of Supervisors 
approved a contract (File No. 172-97-24) with TRW, Inc. 
(TRW). According to Ms. Okubo, ECD selected TRW for 
the subject contract through a Request For Proposals 
(RFP) process in 1997. Ms. Okubo advises that using the 
criteria designed by ECD for this RFP process, TRW was 
ranked highest among the two firms that submitted 
proposals for the project. The other firm was PRC, Inc. 
according to Ms. Okubo. 

Under the original contract with TRW, TRW has served 
as a system integrator for the Combined Emergency 
Communication Center and has provided certain software 
and professional services, as detailed in Attachment II, 
provided by ECD. TRW was hired to: (a) provide the City 
with an effective, up-to-date Computer Aided Dispatch 
(CAD) System, which is used to dispatch emergency 
services to 911 callers, (b) provide the City with an 
Automated Information System (AIS), which is used by 
Police, Fire and EMS to create and record incident reports 
and to organize records for records retrieval and 
management, and (c) integrate other information systems 
into the City's Combined Emergency Communication 
Center, including the 800 MHz radio system, mobile data 
terminals, and the 911 telephone system. The amount of 
the original contract with TRW was $17,136,260. 

On October 19, 1998, the Board of Supervisors 
subsequently approved a resolution (File No. 98-1705) 
that authorized the City to modify the original contract of 
$17,136,260 with TRW, provided that such modifications 
did not exceed $5,000,000, resulting in a maximum 
contract amount of $22,136,260. This resolution was 
referred directly for adoption by the full Board of 
Supervisors, without reference to committee. Since 1997, 
ECD has approved five modifications to the original TRW 
amount of $17,136,260. As shown in the table below, 
these five modifications have increased the original 
contract by $4,947,352, or 28.9 percent, from $17,136,260 
to $22,083,612. 

This proposed resolution would authorize Modification 
No. 6 in the amount of $536,210. If the Board of 
Supervisors approves the proposed Modification No. 6, the 
contract with TRW would total $22,619,822, which is 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

Al 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



$5,483,562, or approximately 32.0 percent more than the 
original contract of $17,136,260. 



Date 


Contract 


Modification . 
Amount 


Amount 


Sep. 2, 1997 


Original contract 




$17,136,260 


Oct. 10, 1997 


Modification 1 


20,000 




June 30, 1998 


Modification 2 


86,838 




Sep. 10, 1998 


Modification 3 


765,088 




Sep. 3, 1999 


Modification 4 


2,803,544 




Sep. 7, 2000 


Modification 5 


1,271,882 




Subtotal of First Five Modifications 




$4,947,352 


Subtotal of Present Contract Costs 




$22,083,612 


Proposed Modification No. 6 




536,210 


H Proposed Total Contract Amount 




$22,619,822 



Attachment III, provided by ECD, contains an 
explanation of each of the modifications listed above, 
including the proposed Modification No. 6, as well as the 
funding sources used for each modification. As stated in 
Attachment III by ECD, "The purpose of the contract 
modifications was primarily for software enhancement 
and operations and maintenance support." 

The Budget Analyst notes that Modifications Nos. 1, 2 
and 3 were all made prior to October 19, 1998, the date 
the Board of Supervisors authorized up to $5,000,000 of 
modifications to the original TRW contract. ECD was 
authorized under Charter Section 9.118 to make 
modifications to the contract under $500,000 without 
prior approval from the Board of Supervisors, including 
Modification No. 1, at a cost of $20,000, and Modification 
No. 2, at a cost of $86,838. 

However, ECD had no authority, without prior approval 
by the Board of Supervisors, to enter into Modification 
No. 3, at a cost of $765,088. In addition, the total cost of 
$871,926 for all three modifications ($20,000 plus $86,838 
plus $765,088) was $371,926 more than ECD's 
authorization of $500,000 in modifications as provided by 
Charter Section 9.118. 



The proposed Modification No. 6 includes software 
enhancements, design changes requested by system users 
(Fire and Police Departments), and technical corrections, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

42 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

according to Ms. Okubo. As stated in Attachment III, 
these changes include: 

• Modifications to the Telephone Device for the Deaf 
interface (TDD); 

• Modifications to the Computer Aided Dispatch 
(CAD) software; 

• Enhancements to the Police Department's 
PeopleSoft for Human Resource Management 
System; 

• Data conversion from the previous Computer Aided 
Dispatch (CAD) System to the new Enhanced CAD 
System; 

• Additional operations and maintenance support. 

In addition, the proposed contract Modification No. 6 
would update the existing contract to reflect changes to 
the City Administrative Code to include the Minimum 
Compensation Ordinance and requirements that firms 
contracting with the City provide all eligible employees 
with Earned Income Credit Forms. 

Ms. Okubo advises that the changes under Modification 
No. 6 are necessary because the Police Department and 
the Fire Department have requested software 
enhancements to improve the CAD/AIS system. According 
to Ms. Okubo, examples of such improvements include a 
modification to the Telephone Device for the Deaf (TDD) 
Interface and the installation of a Dictaphone interface. 

Term of Contract: The term of the original contract with TRW commenced 
on September 2, 1997 and was to end on February 2, 
2000. (See Comment No. 1 for further information). The 
proposed Modification No. 6 to the TRW contract would 
extend the contract expiration date to one year following 
the Final Acceptance Date, which is defined in the subject 
contract modification as the date that the Emergency 
Communications Department (ECD) has verified the 
performance of all services and materials provided under 
the subject contract with TRW. According to Ms. Okubo, 
ECD estimates that the Final Acceptance Date will be in 
June of 2001, which would set the expiration date of the 
subject contract with TRW one year later, approximately 
in June of 2002. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

43 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Source of Funds: E-911 (Enhanced-911) Project Funds, appropriated in 
1993 to fund the E-911 Project, described in Attachment I 
provided by ECD. 

The E-911 Project Fund is the repository for funds 
collected by the City from the Emergency Response Fee 
established by the Board of Supervisors in December of 
1993 to apply to eligible commercial and residential lines 
in San Francisco. The Emergency Response Fee was 
originally imposed at a rate of $0.50 per month per access 
line (in general, on each telephone number for residential 
and commercial users) and $2.50 per month per tr unk 
line (in general, for larger commercial users). In 1997, the 
Board of Supervisors approved a ordinance (File No. 127- 
97-1.1), which authorized a 100 percent increase in the 
Emergency Response Fee, bringing the Fee to its current 
level, from $0.50 per month to $1.00 per month for each 
eligible access line and from $2.50 to $5.00 per month for 
each eligible trunk line located in San Francisco. Ms. 
Okubo advises that the fee increase was accompanied by 
an increase in the cap placed on total revenues that could 
be received by the City from the Emergency Response Fee 
from $60,000,000 to $100,000,000, an increase of 
$40,000,000 or 66.7 percent. Under the resolution 
previously approved by the Board of Supervisors, when 
the City has received this total maximum amount of 
$100,000,000 the Emergency Response Fee will be 
eliminated. 

According to Ms. Okubo, the current estimated average 
monthly revenue from the Emergency Response Fee is 
$1,000,000, or $12,000,000 annually. Ms. Okubo reports 
that ECD collected $1,478,777 in Fee revenues during 
February of 2001. Ms. Okubo advises that as of March 21, 
2001, total revenue collected from the Emergency 
Response Fee was $55.8 million, resulting in an average 
monthly revenue of $641,379 over the seven years and 
three months (or 87 months) the Fee has been in place. As 
stated above, under the 1997 legislation that increased 
the amount of the Emergency Response Fee, the Fee will 
expire when the City has collected a total of $100,000,000 
in fees. Therefore, based on current average revenues 
collected of $1,000,000 per month, ECD anticipates that 
the City will reach this maximum amount of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

44 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Budget for 
Modification No. 



$100,000,000 in approximately December of 2004, 
approximately 45 months. 



The table below contains a budget for the proposed 
Modification No. 6 to the existing contract with TRW. The 
budget is based on: (a) a fixed price agreement per 
service, negotiated with TRW, and (b) hourly rates for 
time and materials, in addition to the fixed price 
agreement, for additional maintenance and operation 
services, including hardware support, Computer Aided 
Dispatch (CAD) administration and software applications. 



Proposed 
Modification No. 6 


Hourly 
Rate 


No. of 
Hours 


Amou: 


Fixed Price Agreement 
(See Attachment IV for details, 
provided by the ECD) 


NA 


NA 


$283,l| 


Subtotal Fixed Price Agreement 


$283,(1 


Hourly Rates for Time and Materials 

Computer Aided Dispatch Administrator 
8:00 am- 5:00 pm 
5:00 pm - 12:00 am 
12:00 am - 8:00 am 

Unix Administrator 
8:00 am - 5:00 pm 
5:00 pm - 12:00 am 
12:00 am - 8:00 am 

NT Administrator 

(NT is a computer operating system) 

8:00 am - 5:00 pm 

5:00 pm - 12:00 am 

12:00 am - 8:00 am 


S169 
S194 
$203 

$137 
$158 
$164 

$137 
$158 
S164 


700 
50 
20 

400 
20 
16 

400 

20 

15.58 


SU8,:| 
9. 

4, : 

54, ( 

54. ( 


Subtotal Tin 


\e and Materials 


1,641.58 


S253,4 


Total Maxir 


num Cost for Mo 


dification No. 6 


8536,1 



Comments: 



1. The term of the original contract with TRW commenced 
on September 2, 1997 and was to end on February 2, 
2000, for a term of two years and five months. Based on 
the Budget Analyst's review of Modification No. 4, 
Modification No. 4 authorized an extension of the original 
contract from February 2, 2000 through September 14, 
2000, when the contract was scheduled to expire. The 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

45 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Budget Analyst notes that the contract thus expired seven 
days after ECD approved Modification No. 5 to the 
original contract on September 7, 2000. Modification No. 
5 did not change the expiration date of September 14, 
2000, according to Ms. Okubo. Ms Okubo advises that 
even though the contract with TRW officially expired on 
September 14, 2000, TRW has continued on site to 
complete work required under its contract with the City. 
As previously noted, the proposed Modification No. 6 to 
the TRW contract would extend the contract expiration 
date to one year following the contract's Final Acceptance 
Date, after the ECD has verified the performance of all 
services and materials provided under the subject 
contract with TRW. Ms. Okubo advises that the final year 
of the contract would serve as a warranty period for all 
products and services provided by TRW. According to Ms. 
Okubo, ECD estimates that the contract's Final 
Acceptance Date will be in June of 2001, which would set 
the expiration date of the subject contract with TRW one 
year later, or approximately in June of 2002. Therefore, if 
the Board of Supervisors approves Modification No. 6, the 
new term of the contract with TRW will be from 
September 2, 1997 until approximately June of 2002, for a 
total term of approximately four years and ten months, 
which is approximately twice as long as the original 
contract term of two years and five months. 

2. The proposed Modification No. 6 states that the City 
will be required to pay a total amount not to exceed 
$536,210, which includes the fixed negotiated fees 
totaling $283,050, detailed in Attachment IV, and an 
amount not to exceed $253,160 for time and materials. 
However, the proposed resolution does not include the 
"not to exceed" language. Therefore, the proposed 
resolution should be amended to include the phrase "not 
to exceed." Ms Okubo advises that if TRW exceeds the 
allotted hours to complete the workplan, as agreed upon 
by both parties, TRW will not charge ECD additional fees 
for those hours. 

3. Under the original contract with TRW, the Project 
Schedule could be amended by mutual agreement 
between the City and TRW. However, the original 
contract contained three time-sensitive milestones 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

46 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



("Critical Milestones") that TRW had to complete by 
specific dates (shown in the table below) or the City would 
suffer financial harm. Under the original contract, the 
City and TRW agreed that $5,000 for each calendar day 
beyond the 60 th calendar day that TRW failed to meet any 
Critical Milestone would constitute a reasonable estimate 
of the additional costs and expenses and detriment that 
the City would incur therefrom. Ms. Okubo advises that 
such costs to the City were based on estimates of potential 
damages and were contained in the original contract. 
Under the original contract, TRW's maximum liability for 
liquidated damages related to Critical Milestones was 
limited to $1,500,000. 

Ms. Okubo advises that the Critical Milestones under the 
original contract were as follows: 

a) Completed Acceptance Test 1 for operation of the 
Fire Department Automated Information System 
(AIS) (April 2, 1999) and the Police Department 
AIS (January 8, 1999); 

b) Completed Acceptance Test for the Enhanced 
Computer Aided Dispatch (ECAD) system (March 
26, 1999); 

c) Cutover of the 911 System (October 30,1999). 
(Cutover refers to the date the system was put into 
operation, according to Ms. Okubo). 

Ms. Okubo advises that the TRW failed to meet any of the 
above three Critical Milestones. The Budget Analyst 
notes that as of the writing of this report, ECD was 
unable to provide the Budget Analyst with an explanation 
for why ECD did not assess liquidated damages under the 
original contract provisions on TRW for failing to meet 
the three above Critical Milestones. 

In September of 1999, Modification No. 4 revised and 
extended the original Critical Milestone dates, as shown 
in the table below. Ms. Okubo advises that TRW failed to 
meet four of the five the revised Critical Milestones, as 



1 For "Acceptance," the original contract establishes the dates, performance standards, and 
criteria by which the contract deliverables were to be accepted formally by the City. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

47 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



shown in the table. As a result, on October 15, 1999 ECD 
began assessing against TRW $1,500,000 in liquidated 
damages, the maximum amount authorized, on October 
15, 1999. ECD was unable to provide the Budget Analyst 
with the final date ECD assessed the total $1,500,000 in 
liquidated damages. 



Revised Critical Milestone under Modification No. 4 


Revised 
Critical Milestone 


Critical 
Milestone Date 


Date to Begin 

Liquidated 

Damages 


Actual 

Date Critical 

Milestone 

Realized* 


Site Acceptance of Fire Department 
Automated Information Systems (AIS) 


Oct. 1, 1999 


Oct. 15, 1999 


Jan. 9, 2001 


Site Acceptance of Police Department 
AIS 


Oct. 22, 1999 


Oct. 30, 1999 


Expected 

approximately by 

June 31, 2001 


Enhanced CAD Factory Acceptance Test 


April 2, 1999 


June 2, 1999** 


June 2, 1999 


Cutover of Fire Computer Aided 
Dispatch (CAD) *** 


Nov. 30, 1999 


Feb. 8, 2000 


Nov. 12, 2000 


Cutover of 911 System 


Feb. 14, 2000 


Feb. 15, 2000 


Nov. 12, 2000 



* Information provided by ECD. 

** This represents the one Critical Milestone deadline met by TRW. 

*** "Cutover" refers to the date the system was put into operation, according to 

Ms. Okubo 



4. As stated in Attachment II, provided by ECD, as of 
October 15, 1999, the City began to withhold $1,500,000 
in liquidated damages assessed against TRW from 
payments owed by the City to TRW. According to Ms. 
Okubo, excluding one additional bill of $902,405, which 
ECD has not yet processed, TRW has billed the City for 
$21,135,792 in services provided by TRW, and the City 
has paid TRW a total of $19,635,792, which is $1,500,000 
less than the $21,135,792 billed by TRW. As shown in 
Attachment II. Ms. Okubo advises ECD will not pay the 
additional $902,405 until TRW has completed all services 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

48 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



required under the original contract and subsequent 
modifications. The final payment of this $902,405 would 
result in a total contract amount of $22,038,197, which is 
$45,415 less than the total authorized contract amount of 
$22,083,612 through Modification No. 5 (due to billings 
from TRW based on time and materials that were less 
than originally anticipated, according to Ms. Okubo). 

Ms. Okubo advises that the $1,500,000 in liquidated 
damages being withheld from TRW could create a surplus 
of $1,500,000 in the project budget for the E-911 Project if 
the funds are not paid to TRW. Ms. Okubo advises that 
ECD has not yet determined how these $1,500,000 in 
funds will be used if the funds are not paid to TRW. 

5. Mr. Fraijo declined to make a statement that the City 
will eventually not pay TRW the $1,500,000 in liquidated 
damages presently being withheld by the City for TRW 
services rendered for which the City has not yet paid 
TRW. 

6. The Budget Analyst notes that Modification No. 4 
states: 

"In addition to any other remedy under this 
Agreement, TRWs inability to achieve Final 
Acceptance of the integration CAD/AIS Police, 
Fire/EMS Systems within 120 days after Critical 
Milestone 5 will be cause for immediate termination 
of this Agreement." 

As shown in the table above, Critical Milestone No. 5 
consisted of Cutover operation for the 911 System and 
had a Critical Milestone deadline of February 14, 2000, 
making the 120-day, or three-month, deadline May 14, 
2000. However, according to Ms. Okubo, ECD does not 
expect TRW to achieve Final Acceptance of the 
integration CAD/AIS Police Systems until approximately 
June 30, 2001, which would be 13.5 months past the May 
14, 2000 deadline stipulated in Modification No. 4. Ms. 
Okubo advises that ECD did not terminate the 
Agreement, as permitted by Modification No. 4, because 
the project was close to completion and it was determined 
that at that point, it would not benefit the project to seek 
a new contractor. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

49 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

7. Modification No. 6 states that, "Upon completion and 
successful demonstration of the functionality of all the 
Work set forth in this Sixth Modification, TRW shall be 
entitled to submit an invoice to the City for payment of 
$283,050," which is the total cost of the Fixed Price 
Agreement, shown in Attachment rV. For the remaining 
$253,160 of the total $536,210 cost of Modification No. 6., 
the contract states that TRW may submit invoices on a 
time and materials basis. 

Summary: In summary, the Budget Analyst notes the following 

issues raised in this report: 

(a) In 1997, the Board of Supervisors approved the original $17,136,260 contract 
with TRW, Inc., for TRW to provide the Emergency Communications 
Department (ECD) with software and related professional services for the 
Combined Emergency Communication Center (CECC), for a contract term 
from September 2, 1997 to February 2, 2000; 

(b) Subsequently, on October 19, 1998, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
resolution, for adoption by the Board of Supervisors, without reference to 
committee, that authorized ECD to make up to $5,000,000 in modifications to 
the original contract, without having to seek prior approval from the Board of 
Supervisors; 

(c) In fact, ECD had already authorized contract modifications totaling $871,926 
under the TRW contract, prior to the Board of Supervisors October 19, 1998 
approval of the resolution that authorized up to $5,000,000 in such contract 
modifications. ECD had the authority under Charter Section 9.118 to make 
only $500,000 of contract modifications without prior approval by the Board 
of Supervisors. Therefore, ECD entered into contract modifications exceeding 
their authorization by a total of $371,926 ($871,926 less $500,000); 

(d) TRW failed to meet the three Critical Milestones outlined in the original 
contract, and ECD failed to charge TRW any liquidated damages, as 
stipulated under the original contract; 

(e) Modification No. 4 subsequently extended and revised the Critical 
Milestones, of which TRW failed to meet four out of the five Critical 
Milestones; 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

50 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

(f) As a result, beginning October 15, 1999, ECD assessed liquidated damages 
totaling $1,500,000, the maximum amount allowed by the contract with 
TRW. ECD was unable to provide the Budget Analyst with the final date 
ECD assessed the total $1,500,000 in liquidated damages; 

(g) Mr. Fraijo declined to make a statement that the City will not eventually pay 
TRW the $1,500,000 in liquidated damages presently being withheld by the 
City for TRW services rendered for which the City has not yet paid TRW; 

(h) Modification No. 4 also extended the contract term from the original 
expiration date of February 2, 2000 to September 14, 2000, which was only 
seven days after Modification No. 5 was approved on September 7, 2000; 

(i) The proposed Modification No. 6 to the TRW contract would extend the 
contract expiration date to one year following the contract's Final Acceptance 
Date, after the ECD has verified the performance of all services and 
materials provided under the subject contract with TRW. ECD estimates that 
the contract's Final Acceptance Date will be in June of 2001, which would set 
the expiration date of the subject contract with TRW one year later, or 
approximately in June of 2002; 

(j) Therefore, if the Board of Supervisors approves Modification No. 6, the new 
term of the contract with TRW will be from September 2, 1997 until 
approximately June of 2002, for a total term of approximately four years and 
ten months, which is approximately twice as long as the original contract 
term of two years and five months. 

Recommendations: 

1. Amend the proposed resolution to add the phrase "not to exceed" before the 
total Modification contract amount of $536,210, in accordance with Comment 
No. 2 above. 

2. Reserve the $1,500,000 in liquidated damages presently being withheld from 
payments owed by the City to TRW for services rendered, pending submission to 
the Finance Committee by ECD of a status report of such liquidated damages 
and the proposed use of any surplus project funds resulting from such liquidated 
damages. 

3. Request that the Emergency Communications Department report back to the 
Board of Supervisors as to the status of the TRW contract in July of 2001, after 
TRW is expected to have completed the work required under Modification No. 6. 

4. Approval of the proposed resolution, as amended, is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

51 




illie L. Brown, Jr. Mayor 



Page 
Emergency Communications Department 
1011 Turk Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 
(415) 558-3800 Fax (415) 558-3841 



1 of 3 




Thera Bradshaw, Director 



TO: 

FROM: 

DATE: 



MEMORANDUM 

Harvey Rose 
Budget Analyst 

Anne Okubo 

Director of Finance and Administration 

March 13, 2001 



RE: Summary of 911 Project 

This memo is in response to your request for background information on the 91 1 Project. 

Summary of 9 1 1 Project 

The 911 project built the combined emergency communications center and consolidated 911 operations 

for Police, Fire, EMS and public safety dispatch at one site. Project components include: 

• Construction of the combined emergency communications center (CECC); 

• Acquisition and installation of 91 1 dispatch and communications equipment; and 

• Acquisition and installation of a Citywide 800 MHz emergency radio system. 

The 911 project is a combined effort of the Fire, Police, DTIS and the Emergency Communications 
Department. 

Description of Project Components 

The components of the 91 1 project are as follows: 

• CECC - two story, seismic base-isolated facility located at 101 1 Turk St, housing 91 1 dispatch 
operations, the Mayor's Office of Emergency Services and the City's Emergency Operations Center. 

• 911 Equipment - consisting of a Computer Aided Dispatch System and Automated Information 
System (CAD/AIS), Wide Area Network and Local Area Network (WAN/LAN), communications 
systems connecting fire and police stations to the 911 center, public safety network, metropolitan 
area network, 911 center wiring, PBX telephone equipment, public safety answering point 
equipment (PSAP) and mobile data terminals. 

• 800 MHz Radio System - consists of an 8 site, 23 channel 800 MHz simulcast radio system located 
in the City and surrounding areas included renovation of the City's Telecommunications 
Maintenance Facility at 901 Rankin Street. Also includes a 5-channel wireless data network and 
metropolitan area network (WDN/MAN) providing high speed data communications from 
CAD/AIS to Police, Fire/EMS mobile data terminals. 



Status of the 911 Project 



C'\VtNOOWS-p»OnLt3lENn.MAMN\DtSKTOrElTASCMA.«<*\TRWCOVnUCT91l SWMMAJlYOOCOWlfll 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 



51a 



Page 2 ot 3 - 
Page 2 

Most components of the 91 1 project are completed or in the final stages of completion. To date the 
status of the 91 1 project is as follows: 

• Construction of the CECC is complete. Construction of the community center adjacent to 1011 Turk 
is underway. This is a community project to mitigate the impact of the new CECC. 

• Acquisition and installation of 91 1 equipment is complete. The CAD is currently in operation and 
final acceptance of the system is underway. The Fire AIS has been accepted. The Police AIS is 
currently undergoing system testing. 

• Acquisition and installation of 800 MHz radio system is complete. Final system testing and 
acceptance is expected to be complete in spring 2001. 

• Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) - not complete. ECD and DTIS are finalizing plans for the 
MAN. An interim system is currently in operation pending implementation of the MAN. 

The major milestones of the project are: 

• Completion of CECC - December 1 998 

• Fire dispatch cutover - April 2000 

• Police dispatch cutover - November 2000 



51b 



Att achment I 
Pigi~3 oi: 3 ' 



il 



5 ° a 
5" .". C 



?f I 2? >r ^s 
||i | f H j= 

1.7 I £ S B 







c- 


m 


£S 


3 


e. 


3 


5 






« 


K 


S.^e 


— 


■■s 


=. 


*■< 






ri 


"^ 
3 


3 




51 . 


3 


33 






^ 


K 








C/t 








3 

3 


3 








"3 
§ 


a. 

a 


B 


t 
















o 


i 




-J 


*o 




o 


{J 




5 


i 




£ 


g 


S 

o 


£ 


^o 





(_ M _ M 



s g s 



51c 




Willie L. Brown, Jr. Mayor 



flLLacnmeni. 1.1. 
Page 1 of 2 
Emergency Communications Department 
101 1 Turk Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 
(415)558-3800 Fax (415) 558-3841 




Thcra Bradshaw, Director 



MEMORANDUM 



TO: 


Harvey Rose 
Budget Analyst 


FROM: 


Dan Fraijo 
Project Manager 


DATE: 


March 22, 2001 


RE: 


TRW Contract 






This memo is in response to your request for additional information on the services provided in the 
TRW contract. 



TRW Contract 

The contract with TRW was to design and install components of the 91 1 system. These components 
include the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD), Automated Information System (AIS), and other 
communications equipment that serve to support Police, Fire and EMS dispatch and response. In 
addition, TRW is under contract to integrate these components into other 91 1 systems such as the 800 
MHz radio system, mobile data terminals and telephony systems. 

Modifications to the original contract were undertaken to enhance the CAD/AIS and other 
communications systems. These enhancements included software enhancements and operations and 
maintenance support. Contract modifications included services to: 

design a Police incident and accident reporting system; 

design services for electrical power systems, acoustic studies of the emergency generators and other 

revisions; 

enhancements to the Human Resource Management System (HRMS); 

additional Police AIS stations; 

build & maintain geofile/mapping databases for CAD/AIS; 

modifications to the software used by Police for mobile data terminals (UCS); 

software modifications to Fire CAD/AIS; 

modifications to integrate data from the Court Management System into RMS; 

Y2K remediation; and 

operations and maintenance support. 



C\WlND0WS\PR0r!L£S\ENEUMAN>ADE5ICT0r£STA SEMANaVTRW CONTXaCTM>£VISED MEMO DAMAGES DOC 01C2HI 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 

51d 



Attachment II 
-Page 2 Fage 2 of 2 

Expenditures Paid to TRW 

To date, the Emergency Co mm unications Department has paid TRW $19,635,792. Withheld from these 

payments are liquidated damages of $1,500,000 for a total of 521,135,792 in services. 

TRW is completing work on the Police Department Automated Information System, Computer Aided 
Dispatch final acceptance, and close out documentation. A final payment of 5902,405 is pending 
completion of this work. This final payment is authorized under the existing contract and contract 
modifications. It is expected that the final payment will be made upon completion of the work, which is 
expected to be by fiscal year end. 

Liquidated Damages 

Liquidated damages of 51,500,000 have been assessed against TRW as follows: 

Date Invoice No. Invoice Amount Payment Liquidated Damages 

10/14/99 67740014 5 1,164,504 5 1,139,504 5 25,000 

10/14/99 67740015 902,405 317,405 585,000 

10/14/99 67740016 902.405 12.405 890.000 

Total 5 2,969,314 5 1,469,314 5 1,500,000 



51e 




Willie L. Brown, Jr. Mayor 



- A-t^tachaervt-^LLX 
Page 1 of 2 



Emergency Co mmuni cations Department 

1011 Turk Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 

(415) 558-3800 Fax (415) 558-3841 




Thcra Bradshaw, Directo 



MEMORANDUM 



TO: 


Harvey Rose 
Budget Analyst 


FROM: 


Thera Bradshaw 
Executive Director 


DATE: 


March 13, 2001 


RE: 


TRW Contract Modification 6 



This memo is in response to your request for information on the TRW contract modification 6. 

The TRW contract consists of an original contract of 517,136,260 (Resolution No. 803-97) and five 
contract modifications up to a maximum additional amount of 55,000,000 (Resolution No. 866-98). The 
Board of Supervisors approved both of these items. ECD is now proposing to enter into contract 
modification 6 for an additional 5536,210. 

TRW Contract Services 

The purpose of the contract with TRW is to design and install a Computer Aided Dispatch System 
(CAD) to be used for 91 1 dispatch operations and Automated Information Systems (AIS) for Police and 
Fire/EMS. Other major components of the contract included: 

• Enhancements to interim Computer Aided Dispatch 

• Police Automated Information System (Records Management System, Human Resources 
Management System & Mobile Computing System) 

• Fire Automated Information System 

• Integration of CAD/ AIS, telephony & 800 MHz radio systems 

History of TRW Contract 

The history of the TRW contract is as follows: 



Original contract 
Modification 1 
Modification 2 
Modification 3 
Modification 4 
Modification 5 



Amount 

517,136,260 

520,000 

586,838 

5765,088 

52,803,544 

51,271,882 





Primarv 


Secondary 


Date 


Funding Source Funding Source 


9-2-97 


911 Fee 


Federal grant, General Fui 


10-10-97 


911 Fee 




6-30-98 


911 Fee 




9-10-98 


911 Fee 


State grant, General Fund 


9-3-99 


911 Fee 


General Fund 


9-7-00 


911 Fee 





Proposed Modification 6 5536,210 

Total 522,619,822 

The purpose of the contract modifications was primarily for software enhancements and operations and 

maintenance support. The details of the contract modifications are as follows: 

C WPsOOWrPlonL£TENEl.'M*^WOt5KTt5rEiTAS£M*f<»>TRWCOSTt»CTIl£v1SEO'niW MM] DOC OVIHH 

Slf 



Attachment III 
Page 2 Pa S e Zotz 



• Modification 1 - Cops More Project Design Phase (Design of Police Incident/ Accident Reporting 
system. 

• Modification 2 - Additional design services for electrical power systems, acoustic studies of the 
emergency generators and other revisions. 

• Modification 3 - Various change orders for PeopleSoft for Human Resource Management System 
(HRMS); additional Police AIS stations; build & maintain geofile/mapping databases for CAD/AIS; 
use of Interim CAD (ICAD) as a message switch; and software modifications. 

• Modification 4 - Various change orders for UCS PoliceWorks (Mobile Computing System for 
SFPD); CAD/AIS design, access & installation for DPT; software modifications to Fire CAD/AIS; 
schedule extension. 

• Modification 5 - Various change orders for enhancements to PoliceWorks Application; Court 
Management System tape upload to RMS; Fire mobile computing licenses/devices; enhancements to 
HRMS application; Y2K remediation; 3 months of operations and maintenance support. 

Modification 6 proposes to execute other change orders for software enhancements, design changes 
requested by the system users (Fire and Police) and technical fixes. These change orders include 
modifications to the Telephone Device for the Deaf (TDD) interface; CAD software modifications; 
enhancements to Police HRMS application; data conversion from ICAD to Enhanced CAD (ECAD); 
additional operations and maintenance support. These changes were requested by ECD and TRW. The 
source of funds for modification 6 is the 91 1 fee fund (Emergency Response Fee). These funds have 
been appropriated. 

The total amount expended to date for the TRW contract is S19,635,792. The TRW contract expired on 
September 14, 2000. The term of the contract was last extended in modification 4. Modification 6 
proposes to extend the contract term to one year following final systems acceptance. 

Project Schedule 

The project schedule per the original contract and modification 4 is as follows: 

Actual 
Date 
Fire AIS Cutover 4-5-99 4-12-00 

Police AIS Cutover 
ECAD Cutover 10-30-99 2-14-00 11-12-00 

Police AIS site acceptance testing is not yet complete. 

Critical milestones for the project, per modification 4 are as follows: 

• 30 day Fire AIS final acceptance test - Aug 1 to September 9, 2000 
• Final acceptance granted on January 9, 2001 

• 30 day CAD final acceptance test - restarted February 26, 2001 

• 30 day Police final acceptance test - not yet started 

The actual cutover dates and critical milestones did not meet the contract requirements. As a result, 
liquidated damages were assessed against TRW for a total amount of 51,500,000. Liquidated damages 
have been withheld from payments to TRW and will increase the balance remaining in the project fund. 
This amount is the maximum amount authorized by the contract. 

Slg 



Original Contract 


Modificatior 


l4 


Date 


Date 




4-5-99 


11-15-99 




1-11-99 


2-14-00 




10-30-99 


2-14-00 





Attachment IV 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 
TRW CHANGE ORDERS 



Fixed Price Fee Agreement 


Amount 


Modification to Unified Login Processing 

Modification to the Telephone Devise for the Deaf (TDD) Interface 

Modification to the Smartzone Interface 

Radio Channel Designations 

Resolution of Minor Changes from San Francisco Fire Department 

Claim to Recover Training Costs 

TESS Reporting of ECD Employees 

Enhanced Computer Aided Dispatch (ECAD) Queries from RMS Terminal 

Installation of Dictaphone Interface 

Installation of Computer Aided Dispatch Admin/ PCs at Hall of Justice 

Additional Police Department Human Resources Management System (HRMS) Panels 

PeopleSoft HRMS Program Changes 

ECAD Commands - Home, End, etc. 

Unit History Conversion from 1 Computer Aided Dispatch (ICAD) to ECAD 


S 36,286 

38,181 

47.191 

9,308 

4.160 

1.778 

3,000 

32,928 





18,837 

18,837 

48,900 

23.644 


Subtotal - Fixed Price Fee Agreement 


283,050 


Time and Materials - not to exceed amount 


253.160 


Total MOD 6 


S 526,210 



Source: Emergency Communications Department 



depC//budget_staff/budget/brd_sup/Budget SMjtlS 3/22/01 



51h 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 7 -File 01-0274 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
March 21, 2001. 



Department: 
Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Treasurer and Tax Collector's Office 

Ordinance amending the Business and Tax 
Regulations Code to (1) repeal Section 917.1 of Article 
12-A and all of Article 12-B to eliminate the Gross 
Receipts method of calculating the tax on businesses; 
(2) enact a new Article 12 to amend the Business Tax 
Registration requirements consistent with the repeal 
of Article 12-B; and, (3) enact a new Article 12-B to 
refund Gross Receipts-based tax payments for the 
2000 tax year (January 1, 2000 through December 31, 
2000) to the extent that such payments exceeded 
businesses' tax liability for such year as measured by 
their payroll expense and resulting Payroll Tax 
liability to the City, effective retroactively to January 
1, 2000. 

According to Mr. Tom Owen of the City Attorney's 
Office, the proposed ordinance would: 

• Repeal the Gross Receipts method of calculating 
the Business Tax effective January 1, 2000 (2000 
tax year). 

• Amend the Business Tax Registration Certificate 
Fee requirements to be consistent with the repeal 
of the Gross Receipts Tax. 

• Refund Gross Receipts-based Taxes for the 2000 
tax year which exceed the amount that would have 
been due to the City in Payroll Taxes based on the 
businesses' payroll expenses. 

1. According to Ms. Julie Van Nostern of the City 
Attorney's Office, this ordinance is intended to respond 
to a series of lawsuits challenging the City's Business 
Tax structure. Ms. Van Nostern advises that those 
lawsuits include a claim that the City's alternative 
Business Tax structure is unconstitutional because 
businesses are required to pay the City either its Gross 
Receipts liability or its Payroll Tax liability, whichever 
is higher. According to Ms. Van Nostern, the Superior 
Court has ruled against the City as to the 
constitutionality of the alternative Business Tax 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

52 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

structure and advises that this Superior Court 
decision is on appeal. Ms. Van Nostern states that 
although the City disagrees with the decision of the 
Superior Court, repealing the Gross Receipts Tax 
method and imposing only the Payroll Taxes on 
businesses would eliminate any future potential 
liability to the City based on the claim of 
unconstitutionality of the alternative tax scheme. 

In FY 2000-2001, the Controller has placed on reserve 
$26.1 million in Gross Receipts Tax revenue 
representing the estimated annual liability for the 
City's current fiscal year. The Controller has also set 
aside additional funds to cover reimbursement for any 
liability which may have been incurred in prior years. 

2. According to Mr. George Putris, Tax Administrator, 
Business Taxes owed to the City are currently 
determined by one of two methods: (a) 1.5 percent of 
payroll expenses (the Payroll Tax); and, (b) Gross 
Receipts (the Gross Receipts Tax), which varies from a 
flat $800 a year to $1.23 to $3.00 per $1,000 of Gross 
Receipts depending on the type of business. 
Businesses are required to pay the City either the 
Payroll Tax or the Gross Receipts Tax, whichever is 
higher. Such taxes are remitted to the General Fund. 

3. Under the proposed ordinance, the Gross Receipts 
Tax method would be eliminated beginning in the 
2000 tax year, effective January 1, 2000. Therefore, if 
this ordinance is approved, the Tax Collector's Office 
will contact an estimated 1,640 businesses (the 
estimate is based on 1999 tax year figures) who were 
required to pay the City on the basis of their Gross 
Receipts Tax liability and advise such businesses to 
calculate the Business Taxes due to the City by using 
the Payroll Tax method, so that the Tax Collector can 
compare the amount of the Payroll Tax due to the City 
to the amount already paid using the Gross Receipts 
Tax method. An Associate Auditor in the Tax 
Collector's Office would then compare the amount of 
the taxes due under the two methods and refund the 
amount of the Gross Receipts-based Taxes for the 2000 
tax year which exceed the amount due to the City from 
the Businesses' Payroll Tax liability. Mr. Mark 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

53 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Buckley of the Tax Collector's Office advises that such 
a procedure would result in the Tax Collector 
incurring estimated costs of $39,000, based on the 
salary and fringe benefits for a 0.5 FTE Associate 
Auditor. 

4. The Deputy Tax Administrator, Ms. Ayisha 
Benham, estimates that the annual foregone revenue 
from eliminating the Gross Receipts method would be 
approximately $22.1 million (the estimate is based on 
1999 tax year figures) The Controller's reserve of $26.1 
million for FY 2000-2001 in Comment 1 is based upon 
expected growth in Gross Receipts Tax revenues since 
1999. Attachment I, provided by the Tax Collector's 
Office, indicates how the Tax Collector estimated the 
$22.1 million of the tax revenue to be foregone. 

5. Mr. Putris notes that eliminating the Gross 
Receipts method of tax payment will also require 
changing how the Business Tax Registration 
Certificate Fees are determined. Currently, the 
Business Tax Registration Certificate Fee can be 
based on either Gross Receipts or the Payroll Expense. 
Under the proposed ordinance, the Business Tax 
Registration Fee would be based on the Payroll 
Expense Tax liability. According to Ms. Benham, 
under the proposed ordinance, businesses whose 
Payroll Tax liability to the City would result in no 
taxes being paid to the City, would pay the minimum 
Business Tax Registration Certificate Fee of $25 and 
businesses which would owe a Payroll Tax liability to 
the City would pay either $150, $250 or $500 annually 
depending on the level of their tax liability. Presently 
all businesses whose Gross Receipts Tax liability or 
Payroll Tax liability is $2,500 or less, are exempt from 
paying Business Taxes to the City. Ms. Benham 
estimates the forgone Business Tax Registration 
Certificate Fee revenue for the General Fund, based on 
tax year 1999 data, would be approximately $3.9 
million annually, beginning in FY 2001-2002. 
Attachment I, provided by the Tax Collector's Office, 
shows how the Tax Collector estimated the amount of 
$3.9 million of foregone Business Tax Registration 
Certificate Fees. Businesses will be informed of the 
changes to the Business Tax Registration Certificate 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

54 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Fee calculation in the annual Registration mailing at 
no additional cost to the Tax Collector's Office. 

6. Ms. Serena Wong from the Department of 
Telecommunications and Information Services (DTIS) 
states that in order to implement the proposed 
ordinance, the DTIS Business Tax Programming Team 
will need to: (1) modify the existing Business Tax 
system to handle data from the pre and post 2000 tax 
year (the effective date of the proposed ordinance is 
January 1, 2000); (2) develop and/or modify software 
programs to implement the 2000 tax year refund 
process; and, (3) provide management reports to the 
Tax Collector to support the refund process. Ms. Wong 
estimates that the DTIS will spend approximately 
2,418 hours modifying and/or developing software for 
the Tax Collector's Office at an estimated hourly rate 
of $91.42 for a total cost estimate of 5221,054. 
Attachment II, provided by DTIS, details what DTIS 
services will be required at an estimated cost of 
$221,054, to modify the existing Business Tax system 
software currently used by the Tax Collector in 
determining a Business' Tax obligation. 

7. Because the Tax Collector already printed its 
publications on Business Tax calculations in December 
of 2000, Mr. Buckley advises that instituting the 
repeal of the Gross Receipts Tax will require revising 
and reprinting of the Tax Collector's publications as 
well as printing and mailing out refund forms to the 
estimated 1,640 businesses who used the Gross 
Receipts Tax method to pay their Business taxes to the 
City. Mr. Buckley estimates the printing and mailing 
costs would be approximately $4,500. 

8. According to the Tax Collector's Office, the one-time 
estimated administrative costs for implementing the 
proposed ordinance would include: (1) Tax Collector 
costs of approximately $39,000 to refund the 
differential between Payroll Expense Taxes and Gross 
Receipts Taxes; (2) $221,054 in Department of 
Telecommunications and Information Services costs 
associated with changes to or new programs for the 
Tax Collector's Business Tax Software system; and, (3) 
$4,500 in costs to revise and reprint the Tax Collector's 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

55 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

publications as well as printing and mailing out 
refund forms to the estimated 1,640 businesses who 
used the Gross Receipts Tax method, resulting in a 
total estimated one-time administrative cost of 
$264,554. 

9. According to Mr. Putris, the Treasurer-Tax 
Collector anticipates that a supplemental 
appropriation will be required to fund a portion of the 
estimated one-time administrative cost of $264,554 
that will be incurred during the remainder of FY 2000- 
2001. However, as of the writing of this report, Mr. 
Putris is unable to estimate the precise amount that 
will be requested in such a supplemental 
appropriation. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter 
for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

5o 






i " i _. '• Atta chm ent I 

Office Of The Treasurer & Tax Collector 

City and County of San Francisco 

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 7426 •> San Francisco, CA 94120-7426 

Street Address: 1 Dr. Carlton B. Gocxflea Place •> San Francisco, CA 94102-0917 

SUSAN LEAL, Treasi 

Phone: (415)554-4 

GEORGE PUTRIS, Tax Adminisr 

Phone: (415)554-4 

AYISHA J. BENHAM, Deputy Tax Adminiar 

Phone (415)554-* 







Elimination of Gross Receipts Measure 

Business Tax Revenue Decrease 

Based on tax year 1999 data, the total amount of Gross Receipts revenues collected was S32.9 
million. We anticipate that the City will receive the lesser payroll tax amount from those 
taxpayers above the S2500 threshold amount of calculated tax. The lesser payroll tax above the 
threshold amount was SI 0.8 million. Therefore, the foregone revenue due to elimination of 
gross receipt tax is S22.1 million. 

Effect of Gross Receipts Elimination on Calculation of Registration Fee 

Currently, the registration fee is based on the taxpayers' tax liability, which is the higher of either 
the gross receipts tax or the payroll expense tax. The proposed legislation will eliminate the 
gross receipts tax and therefore change how registration fee amounts are determined. The 
registration fee amount will be based on a taxpayer's payroll expense tax liability. Taxpayers 
with SO in payroll expense tax will now pay the S25 minimum registration fee and the rest, based 
on the amount of their payroll expense tax, will pay either SI 50, S250 or S500 annually. 
Currently, only taxpayers with less than SI 5,000 in annual gross receipts pay the S25 minimum 
registration fee. 

Based on tax year 1999 data, S9 million was generated in registration fee revenues from 67,300 
taxpayers. The impact of this new legislation will result in 34,900 taxpayers paying a lesser 
amount; 2,200 will pay a greater amount (although it appears that these 2,200 either underpaid 
originally or paid a prorated amount the previous year as a newly started business); and 30,200 
taxpayers will pay the same amount of annual registration fee. 34,400 taxpayers that previously 
paid a higher registration fee amount will now pay the S25 minimum registration fee. Under the 
new scheme, the total registration fees from the same 67,300 taxpayers will generate S5.1 million 
in revenue. Consequently the annual registration fee revenues will decline by S3. 9 million. 



57 



rv and County of San Francisco 



Liza M. Lovvery 
Executive Director 

Telephone: (415)554-0801 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of 2 

Department of Telecommunications 
and Information Services 




Rod Loucks 

Chief Technology Officer 

Telephone: (415) 554-0893 



Fax: (415) 554-4733 



Serena Wong, BTS Project Manager 

Telephone: (415) 554-0862 Fax: (415) 554-0886 



March 12, 2001 

To: Maureen Singleton, Budget Analyst 

From: Serena Wong, DTIS 

Subject: Justification for Business Tax System Revised Legislation Programming 



Maureen, 

Currently, the Business Tax System is calculating the business taxes for taxpayers based on 
the higher of their gross receipts taxes or payroll taxes. In order to implement the revised 
legislation, the DTIS Business Tax Programming Team will need to accomplish the following 
objectives: 

1 . Existing programs need to be changed to handle tax years before 2000, according to the old 
Business Tax Laws (i.e. calculating taxes based on the higher of the gross receipts tax or 
the payroll tax), as well as post- year 2000 tax years for payroll tax only. More specifically: 

• Edit checks need to be put into programs to prevent users from data entry error for all 
online programs. 

• Batch programs for Business Tax processes such as prepayments, second notices, 
determinations, registration fees and audit pools need to be modified as a result of 
getting rid of gross receipts taxes. 

• Annual statements scanning programs and databases need to be modified to process 
tax year 2001 annual statements for payroll tax only. 

2. New programs need to be developed and/or modified to implement the tax year 2000 refund 
process. More specifically, programs will need to be developed for 

• Identifying eligible refund taxpayers and downloading their tax year 2000 tax data from 
annual statements, in order to print refund claim affidavits. 

• Calculating refund claim amounts minus outstanding obligations. 

• Adding flags in the Business Tax System database and online screens to identify 
taxpayers who file for refunds and amended payroll tax annual statements. 

• Modifying online screens to display the refund flags mentioned in 2c. 

• Reporting taxpayers that claimed refunds. 

• Automatically amending statements with gross receipts equal to zero for taxpayers that 
do not file amended returns. 

58 



875 Stevenson Street, Fifth Floor • San Francisco, CA 94103-0943 
Office: (415)554-0300 • Facsimile: (415)554-4733 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 2 

3. Provide adhoc management reports to support the refund process and modify existing 
adhoc reports. 

The time estimate for this Business Tax System modification and refund process is 2,418 hours. 
The cost estimate based on 591 .42 per hour is 5221 ,053.56. 

Should you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 
Serena Wong 



cc: Erich Seamon 



59 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Items 8 and 9 - Files 01-0512 and 01-0513 



Items: 



Item 8. File 01-0512 is a resolution providing for the issuance 
of not to exceed $69,060,000 aggregate principal amount of City 
and County of San Francisco Settlement Obligation Bonds, 
Series 2001 (Business Tax Judgment); authorizing the 
execution, authentication and registration of said bonds; 
providing for an annual appropriation to pay the principal and 
interest thereof; providing for the appointment of depositories 
and other agents for said bonds; providing for the establishment 
of accounts relating thereto; ratifying certain actions previously 
taken; and granting general authority to City officials to take 
necessary actions in connection with the authorization, issuance, 
sale and delivery of said bonds. 

Item 9, File 01-0513 resolution authorizing and directing the 
sale of not to exceed $69,060,000 in City and County of 
San Francisco Settlement Obligation Bonds, Series 2001 
(Business Tax Judgment); prescribing the form and terms of 
said bonds; authorizing the execution, authentication and 
registration of said bonds; providing for the appointment of 
depositories and other agents for said bonds; providing for the 
establishment of accounts relating thereto; approving the forms 
of the Official Notice of Sale and the Notice of Intention to Sell 
Bonds; directing the publication of the Notice of Intention to Sell 
Bonds; approving the form and execution of the Official 
Statement relating thereto; approving the form of the 
Continuing Disclosure Certificate; approving modifications to 
the documents approved herein; ratifying certain actions 
previously taken; and granting general authority to City officials 
to take necessary actions in connection with the authorization, 
issuance, sale and delivery of said bonds. 



Amount of 

Bond Issuance: $69,060,000 

Source of Payment of debt service on the Settlement Obligation Bonds 

Funds and would be a General Fund obligation. The annual debt service 

Amount of over nine years and seven and one half months would be 

Debt Service approximately $7,504,250 in the first year and an average of 

$8,943,666 annually for the remaining term of the bond issue. 

Total debt service (from August 1, 2001 through March 15, 

2011) is estimated to total $87,997,250. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

60 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Description: Over 200 businesses have filed lawsuits or claims against the 

City alleging that the City's business tax is unconstitutional. 
The Finance Committee is now considering a proposal to settle a 
number, but not all, of those lawsuits and claims under Item 10, 
File 01-0437, also being considered by the Finance Committee at 
the meeting of March 28, 2001. Item 10 is a proposed ordinance 
that, if approved, would authorize settlement of certain 
Business Tax lawsuits against the City, by means of binding 
settlement offers in the total amount of $64,909,788 plus 
accrued interest. If that proposed ordinance is approved and the 
settlement offers are accepted by the plaintiffs, final judgments 
would be entered against the City and the City would be 
obligated to pay the settlement of $64,909,788 plus interest. 

$493,472 of the total settlement amount of $64,909,788 would be 
paid from a reserve for litigation. Interest, under the terms of 
the proposed settlements, would accrue at rates of seven percent 
simple interest on $54,887,110 of the total settlement amount 
and the lesser of either eight percent or the rate of return for the 
preceding six months on the Treasurer's pooled investment 
funds, which is currently 6.05 percent, for the balance of 
$9,529,206. 

The subject proposed resolutions (File 01-0512 and File 01-0513) 
would find that it is necessary and desirable to issue and sell 
bonds of the City to be designated "City and County of San 
Francisco Settlement Obligation Bonds, Series 2001 (Business 
Tax Judgment)" in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed 
$69,060,000, in order to meet the payment obligations of the 
settlement to be considered under Item 10 on today's calendar. 
Bonds would be issued at an estimated interest rate of five 
percent, representing substantial savings over the interest rates 
that would have to be paid under the terms of the settlements. 
According to Ms. Theresa Alvarez, Deputy City Attorney, such 
bonds would be authorized under Charter Section 9.111 which 
authorizes the City to issue bonds to refund indebtedness 
pursuant to the general laws of the State and Government Code 
Section 53570 which sets forth the procedures for issuing such 
bonds. 

By issuing bonds instead of paying the judgment under the 
interest accrual provisions of the settlements, the City could 
amortize the payment of the judgment at an estimated annual 
interest rate of five percent instead of the rates for accrued 
interest under the terms of the settlement, thus realizing 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

61 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Sources and 
Uses of 
Settlement 
Obligation 
Bonds 



significant savings in interest payments. As noted above, 
interest would accrue at rates of seven percent simple interest 
on $54,887,110 of the total settlement amount of $64,909,788 
and the lesser of either eight percent or the rate of return for the 
preceding six months on the Treasurer's pooled investment 
funds (currently 6.05 percent) for the balance of $9,529,206 with 
$493,472 being paid from a Reserve for Litigation. 

The Attachment to this report, provided by Ms. Sarah 
Hollenbeck of the Mayor's Office of Public Finance, describes 
the terms of the proposed Settlement Obligation Bonds. 

The table below summarizes the Sources and Uses of the 
Settlement Obligation Bond issuance. 



Sources: 

Par Amount of Bonds 
Total Sources 



$69.060.000 
$69,060,000 



Uses: 

Settlement Fund $67,052,650 

Underwriter's Discount (0.5%) 345,300 

Costs of Issuance 279,000 

Original Issue Discount (2.0%) 1,381,200 

Rounding 1.850 

Total Uses $69,060,000 

The Settlement Fund amount shown in the table above is 
comprised of the following: 



Total Settlements 
Amount Paid from Cash 
Estimated Accrued Interest 
Total Settlement Fund 



$64,909,788 
(493,472) 
2.636.334 

$67,052,650 



The estimated Accrued Interest of $2,636,334 itemized above 
represents interest on the Settlement Amount of $64,416,316 for 
the period from January 1, 2001 through the date of payment, 
anticipated to occur soon after the sale of the bonds which is 
expected to occur on August 1, 2001. The January 1, 2001 
beginning date for the calculation of accrued interest is dictated 
by the terms of the proposed settlement ordinance (File 01- 
0437). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

62 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



The Cost of Issuance shown in the table above of $279,000 is 
comprised of the following provided by the Mayor's Office of 
Pub he Finance: 



Bond Counsel Fees 


$ 70,000 


City Administrative Fees 




(Controller, Mayor's Office of Public 




Finance, City Attorney, Treaurer) 


97,500 


Financial Advisory Services 


51,000 


Rating Agency Fees 


34,000 


Printing/Mailing 




Posting of Official Statement 


16,500 


Advertising 


5,000 


Contingency 


5,000 


Total 


$279,000 



Ms. Theresa Alvarez, Deputy City Attorney, states that the 
City's Bond Counsel, the firm of Jones Hall, was selected by the 
City Attorney's Office from its bond counsel pool which was 
selected using a competitive Request for Proposal process. Ms. 
Hollenbeck reports that Co-Financial Advisors for the City on 
this proposed bond issuance are the firms of Sperry Capital and 
Municipal Capital Management. The two firms were selected 
from the Mayor's Office of Public Finance's financial advisory 
pool which was established in December of 2000 using a 
competitive Request for Proposal process. 



Annual Debt According to Ms. Hollenbeck, the Mayor's Office of Public 

Service, Total Finance anticipates that the Settlement Obligation Bonds will 
Interest and be sold on July 18, 2001 and that the transaction will close on 

Principal August 1, 2001. The annual debt service would $7,504,250 in 

the first year (Fiscal Year 2001-2002) and average $8,943,666 
for each fiscal year thereafter through Fiscal Year 2010-2011. 

Total debt service over nine years and seven and one half 
months (from August 1, 2001 through March 15, 2011) is 
estimated to be $87,997,250 including principal payments of 
$69,060,000 and total interest payments of $18,937,250. 



Recommendation: 



Approval of the proposed resolutions is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

March 28, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 




'Harvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Gonzalez 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Steve Kawa 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

64 



Attachment - Page 1 of 2 



City and County of San Francisco 
Mayor's Office of Public Finance 

Memorandum 



TO: KEN BRUCE 

FROM SARAH HOLLENBECK 

RE: SETTLEMENT OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 200 1 

(BUSINESS TAX JUDGMENT) 

DATE: MARCH 21, 2001 



This memo is being provided in connection with the proposed resolutions authorizing the issuance 
and sale of not to exceed $69,C60,OOO City and County of San Francisco Settlement Obligation 
Bonds, Series 2001 (Business Tax Judgment). 

Background 

As you know, an ordinance authorizing the setdement of certain lawsuits and unlitigated business 
tax claims totaling $64,909,788 plus interest (the "Setdement Ordinance") was introduced at the 
Board of Supervisors' meeting on March 10, 20C1. The proposed issuance of not to exceed 
$69,060,000 of Setdement Obligadon Bonds by the Gty would provide a mechanism by which to 
finance that setdement. 

Settlement Obligadon Bonds. Series 2001 

The sources and uses of proceeds of the proposed $69,060,000 of Setdement Obligation Bonds, 

Series 2001 are as follows: 

Sources: 

Par Amount of Bonds $69.060.000 

Total Sources $69,060,000 

Uses: 

Setdement Fund $67,052,650 

Underwriter's Discount (0.5%) 345,300 

Costs of Issuance 279,000 

Original Issue Discount (2.0%) 1,381,200 

Rounding 1.850 

Total Uses $69,060,000 



The Setdement Fund amount of $67,052,650 represents $64,416,316.12 in setdements and 
$2,636,333.88 in interest on those amounts pursuant to the Setdement Ordinance. (The balance of 
the $64,909,788 in setdements contemplated in the Setdement Ordinance less the $64,416,316.12 to 
be financed, or $493,471.88, will be paid from cash.) Interest on $54,887,110.22 of the settlements 



65 



Attachment - Page 1 of 2 

accrues at 7% simple interest from January 1, 2001 to the date the settlements are paid. On the 
other $9,529,205.90 of settlements, interest accrues from the effective date of the Settlement 
Ordinance to the date the settlements are paid at the lesser of (i) 2/3 of one percent per month 
(equivalent to an annual rate of 8%), or (ii) the average rate of interest earned on the Treasurer's 
pooled cash for the six-month period preceding the payment of the settlement. Because we do not 
know what the rate on the Treasurer's pool will be in August when we anticipate paying these 
settlements, for purposes of sizing the Settlement Fund I have computed the interest on the latter 
group of settlements at 2/3% per month. 

Pursuant to the terms of the proposed resolution authorizing the sale of the Settlement Obligation 
Bonds, the final maturity of the bonds can be no later than 2016. It is expected, however, that the 
bonds will be issued with a ten year term, with principal payments beginning in 2002. The current 
financing schedule anticipates that the bonds would be sold via competitive sale and that the 
transaction would close in August 2001. 

Annual debt service on the bonds, assuming an estimated interest rate of 5.00% based on current 
market conditions, would be approximately $7.5 million in FY2001-02 and thereafter $8.94 million, 
with the final payment in FY2010-11. Total debt service is estimated to be approximately 
$87,997,250. 

Oo-financial advisors on this project are Sperry Capital and Municipal Capital Management, both of 
whom were selected from the Mayor's Office of Public Finance's financial advisory pool which was 
established in December 2000 via an RFP process. Jones Hall is serving as bond counsel on the 
transaction and was selected by the City Attorney's office. 

I hope this information is helpful to you. Please feel free to call me at 554-6240 if you have any 
questions. 



66 



.35 




City and County of San Francisco 



Meeting Agenda 
Finance Committee 

Members: Supervisors Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin and Matt Gonzalez 
Clerk: Gail Johnson 



1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689 



Wednesday, April 04, 2001 1 0:00 AM City Hall, Room 263 

Regular Meeting 

Note: Each item on the Consent or Regular agenda may include the following documents: 

1) Legislation 

2) Budget Analyst report 

3) Legislative Analyst report 

4) Department or Agency cover letter and/or report 

5) Public correspondence 

These items will be available for review at City Hall, Room 244, Reception Desk. 



Each member of the public will be allotted the same maximum number_pf_minutes to speak as set by 
the Chair at the beginning of each item, excluding City representative 



>erofminutes to speak as set by 

^DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
MAR 3 2001 - 



AGENDA CHANGES 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 
REGULAR AGENDA 



010039 [Airport Lease Agreement Modification for United Airlines, Inc.] 

Resolution approving Lease Modification Number Three for Lease No. 73-0066 between United 
Airlines, Inc. and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airport 
Commission. (Airport Commission) 

1/2/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

2/1/01, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee New committee structure 

2^7 /01, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. John Martin. Airport Director; 

Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney, Gary Franzella, Assistant Deputy Airport Director, Aviation Management. Airport 

Continued to February 21, 2001 

2/21/0! , CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. Peter 

Nardoza. Deputy Airport Director for Public Affairs 



City and County of San Francisco I Printed at 1 1:38 ,\M on 3/29/01 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Agenda 



Wednesday, April 04, 2001 



010052 [Airport Lease Agreement for Plot 6 to United Airlines. Inc.] 

Resolution approving lease agreement for Plot 6 between United Airlines, Inc. and the City and 
County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airport Commission. (Airport Commission) 

1/10/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

2/1/01 , TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. New committee structure 

2/7/01, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, John Martin, Airport Director, 

Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney. 

Continued to February 2 1 , 2001 . 

2/21/01, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. Peter 

Nardoza, Deputy Airport Director for Public Affairs 



010483 [State/Airport Maintenance Agreement] 

Resolution approving the final Maintenance Cooperative Agreement as it relates to the SFIA 
Inbound/Outbound Ramps Project which is by and between the City and County of San Francisco, 
acting through its Airport Commission, and the State of California. (Airport Commission) 

3/12/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee Sponsor requests this item be scheduled for consideraaon at 
the April 4, 2001 meeting 



010108 (Fund the development and implementation of Reengineering Plan for the Assessor's Office 
Efficiency Program] 

Ordinance appropriating $726,726 of the General Reserve to fund the implementation of 
Reengineering Plan, for the Assessor's Office for fiscal year 2000-01. (Assessor-Recorder) 

1/17/01 . CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Divided from File 002087. 

1/17/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

2/1/01, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee New committee structure 

2/21/01, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Heard m Committee Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst, Dons 

Ward. Assessor-Recorder, Debbie Liu. KPMG Consulting, Jim Janettc. Assistant Assessor. Rubin Goodman. 



010532 [Bicycle Transit Improvements at Cesar Chavez] 
Supervisors Maxwell. Ammiano 

Resolution approving the Cooperanve Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and 
the State of California Department of Transportation concerning the construction and financing of a 
bicycle overcrossing and at-grade pedestrian "bicycle path widening on Highway 101 at Cesar Chavez 
Street in San Francisco and directing and ratifying certain actions in connection with this Resolution 

01. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee 



010316 [2001 Annual Joint Fundraising Drive] 

Hearing to consider applications from various agencies to participate in the 2001 .Annual Joint 
Fundraising Drive 

2 13 01. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee 2 13 01 - From Mayor's Homeiessness Fund 

2 16 01 - From Community Health Channes of California 

2 20 01 - From Local Independent Chanties 

2 2101 - From Earth Share of California 

2 22 01 - From Ba> Area Black United Fund. Inc 

2 23-01 -From United Wa> 

2 23 01 - From San Francisco Youth Fund 

2/27/01 - From International Service Agencies 

2 2S 01 - From Pnvate Industry Council of San Francisco. Inc 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at I 1:39. <M on 1V9J01 



Finance Committee Meeting Agenda Wednesday, April 04, 2001 

7. 010462 [Special Assistant Employees] 

Supervisor Peskin 

Hearing to address the growth of "Special Assistant" employees in the City and County of San 
Francisco. 

3/12/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Sponsor requests this item be scheduled for consideration at 
the April 4, 2001 meeting. 

ADJOURNMENT 



IMPORTANT INFORMATION 

NOTE: Persons unable to attend the meeting may submit to the City, by the time the proceeding 
begins, written comments regarding the agenda items above. These comments will be made apart of 
the official public record and shall be brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors. Any 
written comments should be sent to Committee Clerk, Finance Committee, San Francisco Board of 
Supervisors, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco, California 94102 by 5:00 
p.m. on the day prior to the hearing. Comments which cannot be delivered to the committee clerk by 
that time may be taken directly to the hearing at the location above. 



LEGISLATION UNDER THE 30-DAY RULE 



(Not to be considered at this meeting) 

Rule 5.42 provides that when an ordinance or resolution is introduced which would CREATE OR 
REVISE MAJOR CITY POLICY, the committee to which the legislation is assigned shall not consider 
the legislation until at least thirty days after the date of introduction. The provisions of this rule shall 
not apply to the routine operations of the departments of the City or when a legal time limit controls 
the hearing timing. In general, the rule shall not apply to hearings to consider subject matter when 
no legislation has been presented, nor shall the rule apply to resolutions which simply URGE action 
to be taken. 



010433 [Ordinance amendment to increase Consumer Protection License Fees] 

Ordinance amending the San Francisco Municipal Code Business and Tax Regulations Code by 
amending Sections 35, 120, 248, and 249.1, relating to fees for licenses or permits for inspections by 
the Department of Public Health. (Public Health Department) 

3/7/01, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance Committee, expires on 4 1 1/2001 



City and County of San Francisco 3 Printed at 11:39 AM on J/29/01 



Finance Committee Meeting Agenda Wednesday, April 04, 2001 

Meeting Procedures 

The Board of Supervisors is the Legislative Body of the City and County of San Francisco. The Board has 

several standing Committees where ordinances and resolutions are the subject of hearings at which members of 

the public are urged to testify. The full Board does not hold a second public hearing on measures which have 

been heard in committee. 

Board procedures do not permit persons in the audience at a Committee meeting to vocally express support or 

opposition to statements by Supervisors or by other persons testifying. Thus applause and booing are both 

contrary to Board requirements. The Board does not permit signs to be brought into the meeting or displayed in 

the room. 

Citizens are encouraged to testify at Committee meetings and to write letters to the Clerk of a Committee or to 

its members, City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco, CA 94102. 

Agenda are available on the internet at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvTS.bos.htm. 

THE AGENDA PACKET IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT CITY HALL, ROOM 244, RECEPTION DESK. 

Board meetings are televised on channel 26. For video tape copies and scheduling call (415) 557-4293. 

Requests for foreign language translation at a meeting must be received by the Clerk of the Board of 

Supervisors at least 48 hours before the meeting. For meetings on a Monday or a Tuesday, the request must be 

made by noon of the last business day of the preceding week. 

Disability Access 

Both the Committee Room (Room 263) and the Legislative Chamber are wheelchair accessible. The closest 

accessible BART Station is Civic Center, three blocks from City Hall. Accessible MUNI lines serving this 

location are: #42 Downtown Loop, and the #71 Haight/Nonega and the F Line to Market and Van Ness and the 

Metro stations at Van Ness and Market and at Civic Center. For more information about MUNI accessible 

services, call 923-6142. 

There is accessible parking in the vicinity of City Hall at Civic Center Plaza and adjacent to Davies Hall and the 

War Memorial Complex. 

The following services are available when requests are made by 4:00 p.m. of the Friday before the Board 

meeting: 

For American Sign Language interpreters, use of a reader during a meeting, or sound enhancement system, 
contact Violeta Mosuela at (415) 554-7704. 

For a large print copy of agenda or minutes in alternative formats, contact Annette Lonich at (415) 554-7706. 
In order to accommodate persons with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or 
related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various 
chemical based products. Please help the City to accommodate these individuals. 

Know Your Rights Under the Sunshine Ordinance 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, boards, 
councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people's business. The Sunshine 
Ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the 
people's review. For more information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 6" of the San 
Francisco Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact Donna Hall: by mail to Clerk 
of the Board of Supervisors. 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place. Room 244. by phone at (415) 554-7724. by fax at 
(415) 554-5784 or by email at Donna_Halli5ci.sf.ca.us 

Citizens interested in obtaining a free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance can request a copy from Ms. Hall or by 
printing Chapter 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code on the Internet, at 
http://www.ci. sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshine. htm 



City and County of San Francisco 4 Printed at 11:39 AM on 3/294)1 



[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 




CITY AND COUNTY l*WB§w£SJj/ OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 

FAX (415) 252-0461 

March 29, 2001 



TO: .Finance Committee 

FROM: ^Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 1 -File 01-0039 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

APR - 3 2001 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
February 21, 2001. 



Department: 
Item: 

Lessor: 
Lessee: 
Term of Lease: 

Right of Renewal: 
Description: 



Airport 

Resolution approving Lease Modification No. 3 for Lease 
No. 73-0066 between United Airlines, Inc. and the City, 
acting by and through its Airport Commission. 

City and County of San Francisco 

United Airlines, Inc. 

The subject lease was first approved in 1973 for an initial 
20-year term, to expire in 1993, with two 10-year options at 
the discretion of the lessee. 

As noted above, the 20-year lease provided for two 10-year 
extensions at the discretion of the lessee, for a total lease 
period of up to 40 years. In 1993, United Airlines exercised 
its first 10-year extension, which is due to expire in 2003. 

On December 5, 2000 the Airport Commission approved 
Modification No. 3 of Lease 73-0066 between the Airport 
and United Airlines, Inc. Under lease 73-0066, United 
Airlines currently occupies 129.75 acres of land used by 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



United Airlines for employee parking and its Maintenance 
Operations Center (MOC) for aircraft maintenance. The 
subject lease was originally approved in 1973 for an initial 
term of 20 years, with two 10-year extension options at the 
discretion of the lessee. According to Ms. Dorothy Schimke 
of the Airport, in 1993 United Airlines exercised its first 
ten-year option, which is due to expire on June 30, 2003. 
The property leased by United Airlines is located at the 
intersection of San Bruno Avenue and the Bayshore 
Freeway. 

The Airport is currently developing a Multi-Modal 
Transportation Center, which includes, among other 
elements, expansion of short-term Parking Lot DD, which 
is adjacent to the property leased by United Airlines, and 
the extension of the Air Train (the Airport light rail system) 
to the Multi-Modal Transportation Center and Parking Lot 
DD (see Attachment I, provided by the Airport, for a 
description of these projects). According to Ms. Schimke, 
Parking Lot DD currently consists of Airport employee and 
Airport tenant employee parking. Ms. Schimke advises that 
Parking Lot DD will be expanded and initially used for 
additional employee parking, and upon completion of the 
Multi-Modal Transportation Center, the expanded portion 
of Parking Lot DD would be converted for long-term public 
parking. Ms. Schimke advises that in order for the Airport 
to complete such an expansion, the Airport needs access to 
Parking I>ot DD through a portion of the property currently 
leased by United Airlines. Under the proposed Modification 
No. 3 to Lease 73-0066, United Airlines has agreed to 
relinquish to the Airport 0.74 acres of property. In return, 
the Airport has agreed to provide United Airlines with 
additional space of up to 2.61 acres for employee parking, 
as discussed below. 

The proposed transfer of acreage under the subject lease 
Modification No. 3 would take place in the two following 
phases: 

(1) Ms. Schimke reports that on December 1, 2000, United 
Airlines relinquished 0.74 of its total 129.75 in leased 
property back to the Airport, leaving 129.01 acres under 
the subject lease with United Airlines (see Comment No. 
2). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Rent paid by 
United Airlines 
to the Airport: 



(2) In exchange for relinquishing the 0.74 acres discussed 
above, the Airport agreed to provide United with 150 
additional parking spaces for United Airlines employees 
that will be added to the lease at a future date, totaling 
a maximum of 2.61 acres. However, Ms. Schimke 
advises that the amended lease with the Airport will not 
include the additional acreage until the Airport 
completes the Multi-Modal Transportation Center and 
the AirTrain, in approximately four to six years, as 
explained in Attachment I to this report. During the 
interim period, between the time that United Airlines 
relinquished 0.74 acres of space on December 1, 2000 
and the completion of the Multi-Modal Transportation 
Center and the AirTrain Extension, the Airport has 
granted United Airlines a month-to-month permit, 
effective December 1, 2000, for approximately 2.61 acres 
to accommodate the additional employee parking. 
Because the guideway for the AirTrain will require use 
of part of the 2.61 acres, the Airport will not be able to 
determine the exact amount of additional space that will 
be added to the existing lease until the Multi-Modal 
Transportation Center and the AirTrain are completed. 
Therefore, proposed lease Modification No. 3 states that 
the Airport and United Airlines agree to expand the 
existing lease "after the Multi-Modal Transportation 
Center and the AirTrain Extension are completely 
designed and constructed... without the requirement of 
formal amendment to the Lease or the approval of any 
party... as to the dimensions and configuration of such 
space." 



Rent for the additional space to be charged by the Airport 
to United Airlines will be at the same rate of $35,879.50 
per acre charged for the existing lease, both when the space 
is under permit and after it is added to the lease. The rate 
of $35,879.50 first became effective in 1998, according to 
Ms. Schimke. 



Ms. Schimke advises that when the first 10-year lease 
extension with United Airlines was negotiated in 1993, 
United Airlines and the Airport agreed to an annual rent of 
$32,617.73 per acre for the first five years of the 10-year 
extension, with one increase of $3,261.77 to an annual rent 
of $35,879.50, effective July 1, 1998, for the remaining five 
years of the 10-year extension, expiring on June 30, 2003. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Permit: 



Compliance with 
City Laws: 



Comments: 



Therefore, during the first 10-year extension between 1993 
and 2003, the rent charged to United Airlines will have 
increased by only approximately 10 percent, or by 
approximately an average of one percent per year. 

Under the proposed lease Modification No. 3, the exchange 
in space would result in a maximum net increase of 1.87 
acres used by United Airlines in this location (the 2.61 
acres in new parking for United Airlines employees, less 
the 0.74 acres relinquished back from United Airlines to 
the Airport). 

According to Ms. Schimke, the month-to-month permit 
granted to United Airlines for the 2.61 acres allows the 
Airport to modify or terminate the permit with 30-days 
notice. Ms. Schimke advises that since the Airport must use 
portions of the 2.61 acres under permit to United Airlines 
for construction of the AirTrain extension, the Airport will 
reduce the number of acres provided to United Airlines 
under permit as needed. 



In addition, the proposed lease Modification No. 3 would 
update the existing lease to reflect changes to the 
Administrative Code and other City requirements, such as 
provisions requiring compliance with the ban on tropical 
hardwoods and virgin redwood, the MacBride Principles 
related to employment inequity in Northern Ireland, the 
Non-Discrimination in City Contracts and Equal Benefits 
Ordinance, and the Minimum Compensation Ordinance. 

1. As previously noted, the proposed lease modification 
would ultimately result in a maximum net increase of 1.87 
acres of space for United Airlines. The net rent increase 
that the Airport would receive annually from United 
Airlines is $67,095 per year, as shown in the table below. 
However, the increased acreage to be added to the lease 
will most likely be less than the estimated 1.87 acres since 
the parking parcel now under permit will be reduced by 
AirTrain construction as described above. Ms. Schimke 
advises that the Airport will not add more than 2.61 acres 
to the lease with United Airlines. The estimated net 
increased rent of $67,095 to be paid by United to the 
Airport is shown in the table below. The net increased rent 
applies immediately to the estimated 2.61 acres provided to 
United Airlines under a month-to-month permit effective 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



December 1, 2000, as well as to the final acreage after it is 
incorporated into the existing lease. As stated previously, 
Ms. Schimke reports that the Airport expects to complete 
the Multi-Modal Transportation Center and the AirTrain 
Extension in approximately four to six years, as stated in 
Attachment I, provided by the Airport. 





Annual Cost 
per Acre 


Total 
Acres 


Annual 
Airport Revenues 


Existing Lease 


$35,879.50 


129.75 


4,655,365 


Space relinquished by 
United Airlines to 
the Airport 


$35,879.50 


(0.74) 


(26,550) 


Estimated additional space 
to be leased by 
United Airlines 


$35,879.50 


2.61 


93,645 


New Total 


131.62 


$4,722,460 


Net Increase 


1.87 


$67,095 



2. As stated previously, Ms. Schimke advises that on 
December 1, 2000, United Airlines relinquished 0.74 acres 
of space leased under the existing contract. In addition, the 
Airport issued to United Airlines a permit, effective 
December 1, 2000, to use an additional 2.61 acres for 
employee parking, at which point United Airlines began 
paying additional rent to the Airport based upon the 
additional 2.61 acres. Therefore, the Budget Analyst 
recommends that the subject resolution be amended to 
provide for retroactive authorization. Ms. Schimke advises 
that the permit to United for use of the 2.61 acres will be 
terminated when the space is formally incorporated into 
the existing lease. 

3. As noted above, United Airlines will be charged rent for 
the additional 2.61 acres at the same rate of $35,879.50 per 
acre charged for the existing lease both when the space is 
under permit and after it is added to the lease. Ms. 
Schimke advises that the rate of $35,879.50 first became 
effective July 1, 1998. The Budget Analyst notes that not 
only has this rent of $35,879.50 per acre not been increased 
since July 1, 1998, or for 2.5 years, but additionally, over 
the 10-year lease extension, which expires June 30, 2003, 
the rental increases to United Airlines in total have 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



averaged approximately one percent per year over 10 years, 
or a total increase of $3,261.77, which adjusted the 1993 
rent of $32,617.73 per acre to the current rent of $35,879.50 
per acre. 

Had this rent amount been adjusted upward according to 
the total 11.24 percent increase in the Consumer Price 
Index (CPI) between July 1, 1998 and January 2001, the 
rent would have increased by $4,302.86 to an annual rent 
of $39,912.35 per acre. Furthermore, the Budget Analyst 
questions why the Airport does not require that United 
Airlines pay the Airport an adjusted rent based on current 
fair market rent for the net additional 1.87 acres to be used 
by United Airlines (the 2.61 acres in new employee parking 
for United Airlines, less the 0.74 acres relinquished back by 
United Airlines to the Airport). 

According to Ms. Schimke, the Airport agreed to the 
proposed exchange of property with United Airlines and the 
rental rate of $35,879.50 because the 0.74 acres United 
Airlines has relinquished to the Airport is critical to the 
completion of the AirTrain Extension and the Multi Modal 
Center. The Budget Analyst notes, however, that the net 
additional 1.87 acres provided to United Airlines for 
employee parking is apparently important to United 
Airlines since United Airlines has requested the additional 
land from the Airport. Therefore, the Budget Analyst 
questions why the Airport does not require United Airlines 
to pay the current fair market value for the additional land 
that United will receive and why the rent being charged to 
United Airlines has only been increased by an average of 
one percent annually over the 10-year lease extension 
period, which expires on June 30, 2003. 

4. Ms. Schimke also states that the original 1973 lease with 
United Airlines contains no provisions for annual 
adjustments in rent during the initial 20-year term of the 
lease, or during each of the subsequent two 10-year 
extension periods. As discussed in Comment No. 3 above, 
the existing lease provides that before each of the 10-year 
extensions, the Airport and United Airlines will negotiate a 
revised rent based upon Airport appraisals of the land's fair 
market value at that time. 

5. In response to the Budget Analyst's report, Ms. Schimke 
advises that the Airport has negotiated the proposed lease 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Modification No. 3 to accommodate the Airport. The Airport 
went to United Airlines with the request for the Airport to 
take back from United Airlines 0.74 acres of property to 
which United had absolute rights under its long-term lease, 
according to Ms. Schimke. The Airport's providing of up to 
2.61 acres of Airport property to United Airlines, which 
would enable United Airlines to provide its employees an 
additional 150 parking spaces at the same rate of the 
existing lease, was the 'price' for United Airline's 
agreement to relinquish the 0.74 acres back to the Airport, 
according to Ms. Schimke. Ms. Schimke states that the 
Airport was not in a bargaining position to demand pricing 
concessions from United as part of this deal. Ms. Schimke 
reiterates that the 0.74 acres that the Airport will obtain 
from United Airlines is necessary for the completion of the 
Airport's Multi-Modal Transportation Center and AirTrain 
extension (hght rail system). In addition to the important 
public policy goals of the Multi-Modal Transportation 
Center, according to Ms. Schimke, the Parking Lot DD 
portion of the project (see Attachment I) has significant 
revenue implications. Ms. Schimke anticipates that the 
expansion of Parking Lot DD (the expansion will initially 
be used for Airport employee parking and Airport tenant 
employee parking, and eventually for public long-term 
parking) allowed by the recapture of the 0.74 acres from 
United Airlines will generate additional parking revenues 
to the Airport conservatively estimated at $1,017,600 for 
the first full year of operation, rising to approximately $3 
million per year when the lot reaches capacity. Ms. 
Schimke advises that these parking revenues will increase 
significantly once the lot converts the Airport employee and 
Airport tenant employee parking to pub he long-term 
parking when the Multi-Modal Transportation Center is 
completed. 

6. Under the terms of the lease, not until the current 10- 
year lease extension expires on June 30, 2003 will the 
Airport, in conjunction with the Department of Real 
Estate, appraise the value of the land and negotiate with 
United Airlines a revised rent based upon the land's fair 
market value at that time, as of July 1, 2003. 

7. As previously noted, in 1993, under the first 10-year 
extension, the Airport and United Airlines negotiated an 
adjusted rent for this first 10-year extension, effective July 
1, 1993, to increase the annual rent by $3,261.77, from 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



$32,617.73 per acre to $35,879.50 per acre annually, 
effective July 1, 1998. This one and only rent increase 
represents an average increase of only one percent 
annually, or a total increase of 10 percent over the 10-year 
lease extension. This mid-term adjustment was not 
intended to reflect fair market value at mid-term, according 
to Ms. Schimke. While the Budget Analyst acknowledges 
that the 1973 original lease contained no provisions for 
annual rent adjustments, nothing precludes the Airport 
from negotiating a rent adjustment at this time, since the 
Airport is requesting approval from the Board of 
Supervisors of a proposed new lease Modification No. 3, 
which would provide United Airlines with 1.87 additional 
acres of Airport property. 

8. At the February 7, 2001 Finance Committee meeting, the 
Airport Director stated that in negotiating the proposed 
lease modification with United Airlines, the Airport took 
into consideration an additional $220,000 for security and 
related costs that United Airlines reports it would be 
required to pay to operate the additional 2.61 acres 
provided under the subject lease modification. According to 
Mr. Gary Franzella of the Airport, United Airlines reports 
that the $220,000 in additional costs would result from the 
need to provide two security guards on the premises, seven 
days a week, which would require United Airlines to 
employ six full-time equivalent (FTE) employees. 

9. The Finance Committee requested at its February 7, 
2001 meeting that the Budget Analyst attempt to 
determine a fair market value for the 150 parking spaces to 
be used for United Airlines employee parking in the 2.61 
acres of additional space to be provided to United Airlines 
under the proposed lease modification. 

According to the Ms. Schimke, the Airport currently 
charges $48 per parking space permit, per month, or $576 
annually, for comparable space used by airlines for 
employee parking (parking with no bus service), which the 
Airport provides to airlines on a per space permit basis. Ms. 
Schimke advises that this rate is based on the Airport's 
Rates and Charges for Airlines, which is adjusted and 
published annually by the Airport. Since the Airport can in 
some cases rent on average two permits per parking space 
(since the Airport is open 24 hours per day), the average 
monthly value of a parking space for airline employees is 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



$96 per month, according to Mr. Franzella. At this rate of 
$96 per month, the total value of the 150 subject parking 
spaces would be $14,400 per month, or $172,800 annually. 
Under the proposed lease modification, based on the 
$93,645 rental revenue per year payable by United Airlines 
to the Airport for the 2.61 acres which provide United 
Airlines with 150 parking spaces, United Airlines would 
pay to the Airport an average of approximately $52.03 per 
month per parking space, or approximately $7,804 per 
month ($93,645 annually) for the_entire 2.61 acres. This 
$52.03 is approximately $43.97 less per parking space per 
month ($96 less $52.03) than the average monthly rate of 
$96 per month per parking space that the Airport is 
currently charging for airline employee parking. Ms. 
Schimke advises that in addition to the 150 parking spaces, 
the subject 2.61 acres includes circulation space for 
vehicles. Under the subject lease and proposed 
modification, United Airlines would not be able to 
reconfigure the parking layout to create additional parking 
spaces, according to Mr. Franzella. 

Furthermore, based on a comparison of parking available in 
the general vicinity of the Airport, CalTrans currently 
charges on average $61 (approximately $59 to $63 per 
month) for leased paved parking spaces approximately the 
same size as the subject 150 parking spaces to be provided 
to United Airlines at the Airport 1 ), according to information 
provided to the Budget Analyst by the Division of Real 
Estate. 

In addition, if the Airport were to have to dedicated the 
2.61 acre area for public parking use instead of for United 
Airlines employee parking, which in fact the Airport 
intends to eventually do in its Parking Lot DD, which is 
adjacent to the 2.61 acres being provided to United 
Airlines, then the Airport could have charged its current 
rate of $15 per day per space 2 for long-term public parking, 
or approximately $450 per month ($5,400 annually), 
according to Ms. Schimke. The Airport collects an average 
net revenue of $222 per parking space per month ($2,664 
annually) from long-term public parking, accounting for 



1 The Real Estate Division reports that CalTrans pays a maximum of $0.20 per square foot of 
comparable paved parking, which when multiplied by the average Airport-reported 315 square-feet 
of each of the subject 150 parking spaces, would result in a monthly parking rate of $63. 

2 Ms. Schimke advises that the Airport charges for long-term parking $1 for every 15 
minutes, with a maximum daily fee of $15. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



operating costs and fluctuations in demand, according to 
Mr. Franzella. Mr. Franzella advises that the Airport 
would not have elected to use the subject 2.61 acres for 
long-term public parking due to the property's location and 
the investment that would have been required to construct 
the infrastructure necessary for long-term parking. 

A comparison of such parking charges are as follows: 





Monthly 


Total 


Parking Use 


Rate 


Annual 




Charged per 


Rent for 




Space 


150 Spaces 


Proposed Lease Modification, 






2.61 acres including 150 parking spaces for the 


$52.03 


$93,645 


proposed rent being charged to United 






CalTrans Leased Parking Space 






in Vicinity of Airport (average rent) 


$61 


$109,800 


for 150 parking spaces 






Comparable Charges by the Airport for 






Airline Employee Parking for 150 parking space 


$96 


$172,800 


(provided per space, based on two permits each) 






Long-Term Airport Public Parking 






(Approximate Net Revenue for Airport 


$222 


$399,600 


for 150 parking spaces) 







As shown in the above table: 

• Based on 150 parking spaces, the proposed $93,645 
annual rent to be charged to United Airlines under the 
proposed subject lease modification would be $16,155 
less than the approximate annual rent of $109,800 
charged by CalTrans for similar parking spaces in the 
vicinity of the Airport. 

• Moreover, according to the Airport, the annual $93,645 
rent to be charged to United Airlines under the proposed 
subject lease modification charged for the subject 150 
parking spaces under the proposed lease modification, 
including additional vehicle circulation space, would be 
$79,155 less than the $172,800 annual amount charged 
by the Airport per space (based on an average of 2 
permits per space) to airlines for permits for airline 
employee parking. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



• Further, the proposed annual rent of $93,645 to be 
charged by United Airlines under the proposed subject 
lease modification would be $305,955 less than the 
estimated $399,600 in net revenue that the Airport 
earns from 150 long-term parking places, not accounting 
for any initial investment costs which would be required 
by the Airport for long-term parking. 

10. Based on the data obtained in response to the Finance 
Committee's question concerning the value of parking 
spaces included in the proposed lease with United Airlines: 

a) under the proposed lease modification the rent charged 
to United Airlines of $52.03 monthly for each of the 150 
parking spaces would be 14.7 percent less than 
comparable parking in the vicinity of the Airport of 
approximately $61 monthly for the parking leased by 
CalTrans and 45.8 percent less than the monthly $96 
the Airport currently charges Airlines per employee 
parking space, based on an average of two permits per 
space; and, 

b) under the proposed lease modification the rent charged 
to United Airlines of $52.03 monthly for each of the 150 
parking spaces would be 76.6 percent less than the 
average $222 monthly net revenue per space that the 
Airport currently receives for long-term Airport public 
parking. 

11. The Budget Analyst based the above calculations on the 
assumption that, under the proposed lease modification, 
the United Airlines would be provided 150 new parking 
spaces, based upon information received from the Airport. 
However, the Airport now advises that United Airlines will 
receive a net total of 75 new parking spaces (the 150 
parking spaces provided in the subject 2.61 acres less 75 
parking spaces under the 0.74 acres which United Airlines 
has agreed to relinquish to the Airport under the proposed 
lease modification.) According to Mr. Franzella, the Budget 
Analyst should consider the land value of the subject 2.61 
acres based on the value of 75 parking spaces, as opposed to 
150 parking spaces. However, if a comparison of 75 parking 
spaces, instead of 150 were made, the relationship between 
the individual parking space valued in this analysis would 
remain identical. Furthermore, we disagree with Mr. 
Franzella. The analysis by the Budget Analyst addresses 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



the fair market value of the new space that will now be 
leased to United Airlines that includes 150 parking spaces. 

12. At its meeting of February 7, 2001, the Finance 
Committee also requested the Airport Director to attempt 
to renegotiate the proposed lease Modification No. 3 in 
order to require United Airlines to pay to the Airport 
Consumer Price Index adjustments and/or fair market 
value for the subject 2.61 acres. 

13. At the request of the Finance Committee, Mr. Gary 
Franzella of the Airport contacted Ms. Kate Hill, Regional 
Manager of Corporate Real Estate for United Airlines 
concerning possible renegotiations of this lease 
Modification No. 3 to address concerns over adjustments in 
rent to reflect Consumer Price Index adjustments and/or 
fair market value for the subject 2.61 acres. In response to 
the Airport's request, Mr. Peter Nardoza of the Airport 
states in his memorandum of March 21, 2001 to the 
Finance Committee pertaining to this item as well as File 
01-0052, also being considered by the Finance Committee 
on its calendar of April 4, 2001 (Attachment II): "United 
Airlines has responded that it negotiated in good faith with 
the Airport over the original lease agreements and believes 
that the terms agreed to provide value commensurate with 
the complexity, inconvenience, additional costs and Airport 
required access associated with both properties." Mr. 
Nardoza's memorandum provides additional details 
regarding the negotiations between the Airport and United 
Airlines. 



Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to provide for retroactive 
authorization, in accordance with Comment No. 2 above. 

2. The Budget Analyst continues to consider approval of the 
proposed resolution, as amended, to be a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors because under the proposed lease 
Modification No. 3, the Airport will not receive current fair 
market value until July 1, 2003 and, as the lease presently 
states, the Airport does not require United Airlines to pay 
annual rent adjustments based on annual percentage 
increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) over the entire 
potential 40-year term of this lease. In addition, the fair 
market value rates of the parking spaces to be provided to 
United Airlines under the proposed lease are considerably 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



less than comparable parking rates that could be received 
for parking as noted in Comments 10 and 11, above. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attach ment- I 
P^je i or "2 



AIRPORT COMMISSION 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

INTEROFFICE MEMORANTJUM 



TO: 



FROM: 



Harvey Rose 
budget Analyst 

csob Rhoades \j£-' 

Deputy Airport Director, Business 



DATE:. January 24, 2001 



en's: 



SUBJECT: Lot DD Development - MulmModal Transportation C 

«™ • v Um ' Cd - iJl&x " <""*"> ! °' UA =npl°y== parking Acc-a to'thl? T "^ 
! m p ,s b * wa y °f a signalized enny/cxit from South Airpon Boulevard ? P ° y " pa,Wn « 

«-poa 4^^TwTri^c r^sr d s - B ™° A — • ~- 

C'nIw^v^ '° "T" L0t DD * pm ° f a ""M-Modal Wpooadon Center 

number of tranan ^ objec: ; such yebkuto .melM andel . CVC ° 

SamTrlu ^o ^ XfL"-^ PUMC T* "P PT °^ * dir " : — «*i «^£T. new 
Bay Trail. anTn^v b^c^ J , } . C:,C0 ^ C ^ «"™'»l by providing an extension of £ 
AirTrain. ^ P "* ,n!S C,cih ' 1 '= WLh d,rK; «»■ » *= -CTniiul complex via 

Lot DD improvements will involve an extension of the AnTnun Sys-=m fih, »; 

syson); two MMTC AirTrain Stauous; construction of a link of ,h a F^f* = ** "'' 

phl=Tr'° n ,° f 1 ° nS - ten ' l«*N «"*•-■ If I« DD into = tJX ££2 Eay ^ 

pnases for implementation. ' broken into two 

1 firtn ! .^ provc:nc:its include: paving an unimproved portion of the let to arf i 

1.600 additional parking spaces to feudally be uicd bv Llov e - y ^^ L a ?P™^ly 

*e intentions of South Airport Roulevid and the T-3SQ o/fan d ofr^f ^ProvcmcotS at 

contract « currently underlay to make me erst po^e improvement ^ A,Mfc A 

14 



Attachment I 
i^age 2 or 2' 



EarveyRaae 
Jaauary24, 2QQ1 
Pare 2 



Phase TI improvements include: the extension of the AirTrain System; construction of a second 
psrkhag structure; and the conversion of the employee parking lot and structures into lon?-term 
parking facilities. 

The only viable vehicular access to the new parking area being developed is through the United 
Airlines' secure leasehold area. Withour such access, the new surface parking area bein«- 
developed in Phase I would be unusable, making less long-term parking available in the future. 
To obtain UA agreement to bisect their leasehold the Airport agreed to increase the UA 
leasehold to accommodate 150 additional parking spaces and to retain the access onto San Bruno 
Avenue for the UA employees. 

Phase I of the project is now underlay. The entire MMTC, including phase II imorovements is 
expected to be complete within four to six years. 



15 



COMMISSION 



Of Si-J f BiNCHCO 



itNPr C SHu« 



»0'- 3i»«:ro-* 



Attachment 11 
Page 1 ot 2 



San Francisco International Airport 

March 21, 2001 




P.O. Boa 609? 

Sen ^rarcisco I 

The Honorable Mark Leno "•' °* " ioc:> 

Chair, Finance Committee 

Board of Supervisors 

City and County of San Francisco 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 

City Hall, Room 244 

San Francisco, CA 941024689 

Dear Supervisor Leno: 

I'm writing to relay to you the San Francisco International Airport's attempt to bring 
closure to the United MOC Lease Modification 3 and the United Plot 6 Lease 
Modification. As stated in previous Finance Committee meetings, both modifications are 
vital to the completion of the Airport's AirTrain operation - a major public policy and 
public transportation goal of the Airport's Master Plan. 

At the Finance Committee's request, Airport staff contacted United Airlines with a 
request to restructure the leases to address concerns over fair market value rent on the 
lease modification to United Maintenance Operations Center (MOC) and a June 2000 
CPI adjustment on the Plot 6 lease. 

United Airlines has responded that it negotiated in good faith with the Airport over the 
original lease agreements and believes that the terms agreed to provide value 
commensurate with the complexity, inconvenience, additional costs and Airport required 
access associated with both properties. 

While this is not the response hoped for to move these items forward, I believe it is 
important to point out that United has been a willing partner in the Airport's Master Plan 
expansion from the beginning. When the Airport was finalizing its Master Plan 
expansion, United held substantial land in their Plot 5 and 6 leases which were needed 
to accommodate the expansion of aprons and taxiways to support the New International 
Terminal. In the mid-1990s United agreed to relinquish leased land, as needed, to meet 
Master Plan requirements. This was done at substantial cost and inconvenience to 
United. Additionally Airport staff informed United that another parcel of Plot 6 leased 
land would be necessary to accommodate the AirTrain platform footprint In the spirit of 
United's original agreement to accommodate Master Plan objectives, United agreed to 
retroactive rent at a higher amount pending the final parcel definition, which was solely 
in the control of the Airport. It should be noted that this proposed lease represents a net 
increase in rent of $1,076,302 annually (a 211% increase), from the current rent of 
$508,353 to $1,584,655.76. 

16 



Attacnment 11 



Honorable Mark Leno 
Manh21,2001 

Page 2 



With regard to the Lease Modification 3 to the United MOC, the Airport went to United 
with the request to take back property to which United had absolute rights under its long- 
term lease until 2013. The Airport's ability to re-acquire this parcel of land in Lot DD has 
significant revenue implications in its eventual use as long-term parking. The land at 
issue is anticipated to produce approximately S3 million annually, once the lot reverts to 
long-term parking for the AirTrain system. Furthermore, this parking revenue is part of 
the Airport concessions revenue, 15% of which is paid to the City's General Fund. 

Finally, let me remind the Committee that the Airport, according to the terms of the 
Lease and Use Agreement, must operate on a revenue cost recovery basis. What is not 
collected from leases and concessions is collected from Airline landing fees and terminal 
rentals. 

I urge your approval of the lease modifications. 

Very truly yours, 



Peter Nardoza 
Deputy Airport Director 
Public Affairs 



cc: Hon. Aaron Peskin 

Vice Chair, Finance Committee 
Hon. Matt Gonzalez 

Member, Finance Committee 
Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 



17 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 2 - File 01-0052 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
February 21, 2001. 



Department: 
Item: 



Lessor: 

Lessee: 

Total Acreage and 
Cost Per Month 
Payable by United 
Airlines, Inc. to the 
Airport: 



Purpose of Lease: 

Amount Payable by 
United to Airport: 



Airport Commission 

Resolution approving a new lease agreement for Plot 6 
between United Airlines, Inc. (United) and the City and 
County of San Francisco, acting by and through its 
Airport Commission 

City and County of San Francisco 

United Airlines, Inc. 



16.04 acres at a monthly rental rate of $132,054.65 for the 
first and second years of the proposed lease 
(approximately $8,232.83 per acre per month). For the 
first and second years, annual rent would total 
$1,584,655.76 ($98,794 per acre per year). 

United will use the 16.04 acres for an air cargo facility, 
administrative offices and employee parking. 



$1,584,655.76 per year for the first and second year of the 
lease. According to Ms. Dorothy Schimke of the Airport, 
rent in the amount of $1,584,655.76 per year represents 
the fair market value of the subject 16.04 acres on June 1, 
1999, the retroactive effective date of the proposed lease. 
Presently, United pays the Airport $508,353 under permit 
for 19.35 acres (see Comment No. 2). The proposed lease 
provides for annual increases in the rent based on 
increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). According to 
the proposed lease, the CPI adjustment would begin on 
June 1, 2001. As stated in the Attachment provided by 
the Airport, there will be no CPI adjustment between 
June 1, 1999 and June 1, 2001, thereby resulting in no 
CPI adjustment for the second year of the lease between 
June 1, 2000 and June 1, 2001. The lease requires United 
Airlines to pay CPI adjustments for the third, fourth and 
fifth year of the lease. In the sixth year of the proposed 
lease, the annual rental payment to the Airport will be 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Term of Lease: 



Right of Renewal: 

Maintenance and 
Operations: 



Description: 



determined by a City reappraisal of the land to 
reestablish the fair market value amount. Subsequent 
annual increases in the rent will be made based on 
increases in the CPI through the end of the lease. 

Retroactive to June 1, 1999 to June 30, 2011 (12 years 
and one month) 

Lessee has no renewal rights. 



The Lessee, United Airlines, Inc., pays for the costs of all 
maintenance and operations. 

The proposed resolution would authorize a new 12 year 
and one month lease retroactive to June 1, 1999 of 16.04 
acres of a newly configured Plot 6 to accommodate 
United's air cargo facility, some administrative offices and 
employee parking. The 16.04 acres of a newly configured 
Plot 6 would constitute approximately 83 percent of the 
19.35 acres of Plots 5 and 6 covered under a month-to- 
month permit, cancelable on 30-day notice, since the 
expiration of original leases in 1993. According to Ms. 
Schimke, United occupied the 16.04 acres from 1993 until 
June 1, 1999 on a permit basis, instead of under a lease, 
pursuant to the following conditions contained in a 
Memorandum of Understanding negotiated in the early 
1990s between the Airport and United Airlines: 

1) Upon termination of the leases of Plots 5 and 6 
in 1993, the leases would be replaced in the interim 
by month-to-month permits, for the same areas at 
the same land rental rates as were then in effect, 
until the land was required for the Airport's Master 
Plan construction or the functions were 
accommodated elsewhere; 

2) The Airport would offer United a "standard 
lease" for that portion of the site primarily 
comprising Plot 6, for continued accommodation of 
its air cargo facility, offices and related parking; 

3) Rent under the interim permit(s) would remain 
at the same rate as was in effect upon termination 
of the Plots 5 and 6 leases, and would be adjusted 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

to fair market value at the time the new leases 
were in place. 

The differences between the proposed lease for 16.04 acres 
of a newly configured Plot 6 and the existing month-to- 
month permit for 19.35 acres of Plots 5 and 6 are (1) the 
permit is cancelable upon 30-days notice, (2) the new 
lease adjusts the rents as described in Comment No. 2 
below, (3) 1.43 acres have been added to result in a total 
acreage of 16.04 acres for Plot 6, which originally totaled 
14.61 acres, and (4) Plot 6 has been slightly reconfigured 
due to the Airport's Master Plan construction program for 
Boarding Area "G" and the Air Train (Airport Light Rail 
System). 

The proposed lease would reflect the City's 
Administrative Code and other City requirements, such 
as provisions requiring compliance with the ban on 
tropical hardwoods and virgin redwood, the MacBride 
Principles related to employment inequity in Northern 
Ireland, the Non-Discrimination in City Contracts and 
Equal Benefits Ordinance, and the Minimum 
Compensation Ordinance. 

Comments: 1. The Airport Commission adopted Resolution No. 00- 

0464 on December 19, 2000, recommending the proposed 
new lease to United retroactive to June 1, 1999. As shown 
in Attachment I, the lease is retroactive to June 1, 1999 
because in June of 1999, the Airport determined that the 
Air Train required adjustments that would encroach upon 
the eastern boundary of the new Plot 6. Finalization of 
the Plot 6 lease was therefore put off until the Air Train 
issues were settled and a legal description of the premises 
could be accurately determined. Ms. Schimke reports that 
because these adjustments were minimal, United agreed 
to establishing an effective date of June 1, 1999 for the 
proposed lease at the then market value rental rate. The 
final configuration of the parcel incorporating the Air 
Train land recapture was not defined and resolved 
between the Airport and United until November of 2000. 

2. According to Ms. Schimke, the proposed lease of 16.04 
acres includes 14.61 acres of the old Plot 6 and 1.43 acres 
of the old Plot 5. As previously noted, the annual rent for 
the first and second year for the 16.04 acres would be 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 






$1,584,655.76, a net annual increase of $1,076,302.76, or 
an increase of approximately 211.7 percent, retroactive to 
June 1, 1999, from the permit rent of $508,353 payable by 
United to the Airport for the 19.35 acres of Plots 5 and 6 
covered under permit. The new proposed lease pertaining 
to 16.04 acres would result in a reduction of 3.31 acres 
being leased by the Airport to United. Ms. Schimke 
reports that upon approval of the proposed lease by the 
Board of Supervisors, United would pay retroactively to 
the City $1,793,838, representing the difference in the 
monthly rental income of $89,691.90 for the 20 month 
period from June 1, 1999, the start of the proposed lease, 
through January 31, 2001. The net increase in rent 
payable by United to the Airport for the first two years of 
the lease is calculated as follows: 





Approximate Annual 
Cost per Acre 


Total Acres 


Annual Airport 
Revenues 


Old permit: Plot 5 


$42,000 


4.071 


$170,940 


Plot 6 


$22,082 


15.28 


S337.413 


Subtotal for permit 




19.35 


$508,353 


Proposed new lease for 

new Plot 6 (includes a 
majority of the acreage 
of the old Plot 6 and a 
small parcel of the old 
Plot 5) 


$98,794 


16.04 


$1,584,655.76 


Net Increase 






$1,076,302.76 



3. The Budget Analyst notes that had the rent amount 
for the second year of the proposed lease between June 1, 
2000 and June 1, 2001 been adjusted for the increase in 
the CPI, then the rent would have increased by 3.77 
percent or approximately $59,742 to an annual rent of 
approximately $1,644,398 instead of the proposed annual 
rent of $1,584,655.76 for the second year of the proposed 
lease. 

4. Since the lease began on June 1, 1999, the proposed 
resolution should be amended to provide for retroactive 
authorization. 



1 Under the proposed lease for the new Plot 6, United will lease 1.43 acres of the 4.07 acres of 
Plot 5 that were under permit. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
21 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

5. At the meeting of February 7, 2001 the Finance 
Committee requested the Airport Director to attempt to 
renegotiate this proposed new lease in order to require 
United Airlines to pay a CPI adjustment to the Airport for 
the second year of this proposed lease between June 1, 
2000 and June 1, 2001. 

6. At the request of the Finance Committee, Mr. Gary 
Franzella of the Airport contacted Ms. Kate Hill, Regional 
Manager of Corporate Real Estate for United Airlines 
concerning a possible renegotiation of this lease to 
address concerns over the lack of a CPI adjustment for the 
second year of the proposed lease between June 1, 2000 
and June 1, 2001. In response to the Airport's request, 
Mr. Peter Nardoza of the Airport states in his 
memorandum of March 21, 2001 to the Finance 
Committee pertaining to this item as well as File 01-0039, 
also being considered by the Finance Committee on its 
calendar of April 4, 2001 (Attachment II): "United 
Airlines has responded that it negotiated in good faith 
with the Airport over the original lease agreements and 
believes that the terms agreed to provide value 
commensurate with the complexity, inconvenience, 
additional costs and Airport required access associated 
with both properties." Mr. Nardoza's memorandum 
provides additional details regarding the negotiations 
between the Airport and United Airlines. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to provide for 

retroactive authorization, in accordance with Comment 
No. 4 above. 

2. The Budget Analyst continues to consider approval of 
the proposed resolution, as amended, to be a policy matter 
for the Board of Supervisors because there will be no CPI 
adjustment for rent for the second year of the proposed 
lease between June 1, 2000 and June 1, 2001. Had the 
rent amount being charged by the Airport to United 
Airlines for the second year of the proposed lease been 
adjusted upward according to the increase in the CPI, the 
rent payable by United to the Airport would have 
increased by approximately $59,742 to an annual rent of 
$1,644,398, instead of the proposed annual rent of 
$1,584,655.76 as noted in Comment No. 3. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



AIRPORT COMMISSION 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

MEMORANDUM 



TO: Harvey Rose 

Budget Analyst 

FROM: BobRhoades ffL, 

Deputy Airport Director, Business 

SUBJECT: Plot 6 Lease - United Airlines 



DATE: January 25, 2001 



As discussed in the Budget Analyst's report, the subject lease comprises one element of a 
complex series of land exchanges required to implement the Airport's Master Plan. The general 
concept, negotiated in the early 1990's, provided for existing permits to remain in place, at then- 
current rents, until the land was required for the Master Plan construction or the functions were 
accommodated elsewhere. It was generally agreed that the Plot 6 lease would not be finalized 
until the parcel reached its final configuration. It was anticipated thai the plot would reach its 
final configuration when the Airport recaptured a parking parcel in the area now comprising a 
portion of the new Boarding Area G apron. 

The parking parcel was surrendered by United in June 1 999; however, at that time it became 
apparent that the Air Train (Airport light rail system) guideway required adjustments that would 
encroach upon the eastern boundary of Plot 6. The Plot 6 lease could not be absolutely finalized 
until the guideway issues were settled and legal description of the premises could be written, 
based upon formal survey. The issues were finally resolved in late 2000. 

Because the guideway adjustments were rrnrumal, the parties agTeed that, once approved by the 
Board of Supervisors, the Plot 6 rent commencement would be retroactive to June 1. 1999. The 
first CPI adjustment will occur in accordance with lease provisions, once the lease is actually in 
place (after Board approval). The Base Index for CPI adjustments is defined as "the most recent 
Consumer Price Index published immediately prior to the Commencement Date," ur April 1999. 
The Comparison Index for the first (June 2001) adjustment will be April 2001 , generating a two- 
year value increase. 



23 



HENRY t. BERM" 



Attachment II 
Page 1 ot 2 



San Francisco International Airport 

March 21, 2001 

P.O. So* 30°: 

San Frar.osco CA r-i2S 

The Honorable Mark Leno Te; ° 50S:, ' 50C ° 

Chair, Finance Committee T^*!'"**? 

Board of Supervisors 

City and County of San Francisco 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 

City Hall, Room 244 

San Francisco, CA 941024689 

Dear Supervisor Leno: 

4IRPOR7 

comm.ss.on I'm writing to relay to you the San Francisco International Airport's attempt to bring 

cit* and count* closure to the United MOC Lease Modification 3 and the United Plot 6 Lease 

of san fbancsco Modification. As stated in previous Finance Committee meetings, both modifications are 

mLii i sum-™ in vital to the completion of the Airport's AirTrain operation - a major public policy and 

U1V0 " public transportation goal of the Airport's Master Plan. 

At the Finance Committee's request, Airport staff contacted United Airlines with a 
request to restructure the leases to address concerns over fair market value rent on the 
lease modification to United Maintenance Operations Center (MOC) and a June 2000 
CPI adjustment on the Plot 6 lease. 

United Airlines has responded that it negotiated in good faith with the Airport over the 
original lease agreements and believes that the terms agreed to provide value 
commensurate with the complexity, inconvenience, additional costs and Airport required 
access associated with both properties. 

While this is not. the response hoped for to move these items forward, I believe it is 
important to point out that United has been a willing partner in the Airport's Master Plan 
expansion from the beginning. When the Airport was finalizing its Master Plan 
expansion, United held substantial land in their Plot 5 and 6 leases which were needed 
to accommodate the expansion of aprons and taxiways to support the New International 
Terminal. In the mid-1990s United agreed to relinquish leased land, as needed, to meet 
Master Plan requirements. This was done at substantial cost and inconvenience to 
United. Additionally Airport staff informed United that another parcel of Plot 6 leased 
land would be necessary to accommodate the AirTrain platform footprint. In the spirit of 
United's original agreement to accommodate Master Plan objectives, United agreed to 
retroactive rent at a higher amount pending the final parcel definition, which was solely 
in the control of the Airport. It should be noted that this proposed lease represents a net 
increase in rent of $1,076,302 annually (a 211% increase), from the current rent of 
$508,353 to $1,584,655.76. 

Ik 



IKfO" Ol'.tC'O' 



Honorable Mark Leno 
March 21, 2001 
Page 2 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 2 



With regard to the Lease Modification 3 to the United MOC, the Airport went to United 
with the request to take back property to which United had absolute rights under its long- 
term lease until 2013. The Airport's ability to re-acquire this parcel of land in Lot DD has 
significant revenue implications in its eventual use as long-term parking. The land at 
issue is anticipated to produce approximately $3 million annually, once the lot reverts to 
long-term parking for the AirTrain system. Furthermore, this parking revenue is part of 
the Airport concessions revenue, 15% of which is paid tothe City's General Fund. 

Finally, let me remind the Committee that the Airport, according to the terms of the 
Lease and Use Agreement, must operate on a revenue cost recovery basis. What is not 
collected from leases and concessions is collected from Airline landing fees and terminal 
rentals. 

I urge your approval of the lease modifications. 

Very truly yours, 



Peter Nardoza 
Deputy Airport Director 
Public Affairs 



Hon. Aaron Peskin 

Vice Chair, Finance Committee 
Hon. Matt Gonzalez 

Member, Finance Committee 
Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 



25 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 3 - File 01-0483 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 

Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Airport 

Resolution approving the final Maintenance Cooperative 
Agreement as it relates to the San Francisco 
International Airport Inbound/Outbound Ramps Project 
which is by and between the City and County of San 
Francisco, acting through its Airport Commission, and the 
State of California, acting by and through its Department 
of Transportation (Caltrans). 

$52,136 annually 

One-time cost of up to $60,000 

One-time cost of an estimated $10,000,000 

Airport's Annual Operating Budget 

The proposed resolution would approve a final 
Maintenance Cooperative Agreement between the Airport 
and Caltrans for the maintenance responsibilities of the 
Airport and Caltrans for the three miles of State Freeway 
Routes 101 and 1-380 between Millbrae Avenue and the 
Route 101/1-380 separation shown in Attachment I. The 
proposed final Maintenance Cooperative Agreement 
allocates general maintenance responsibilities to the 
Airport for improvements within the Airport's right of 
way and general maintenance responsibilities to Caltrans 
for maintenance within the State's right of way. The 
proposed final Maintenance Cooperative Agreement also 
allocates specific maintenance responsibilities to the 
Airport and Caltrans within the State's right of way with 
regard to the following: 

1) Jointly owned structure bearing systems 1 ; 

2) Variable Message Signs and customized Airport 
signs and sign structures (see Comment No. 2); 

3) Landscaping along the roadways and within the 
Airport entrance; 

4) Federal Airline Administration red obstruction 
lights; 



1 Jointly owned structure bearing systems are jointly owned portions of State Freeway ramps that 
enter and exit the Airport. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



5) Concrete barriers; and 

6) Drainage systems. 

The final Maintenance Cooperative Agreement also 
allocates responsibility to the Airport for one-time 
funding, subject to appropriation approval by the Board of 
Supervisors, of the following: 

1) Up to $60,000 for computerized software to 
monitor traffic; and 

2) An estimated $10,000,000 for future traffic 
improvement measures, if traffic density 
conditions specified in the Agreement are met. 

On May 6, 1997, the Airport Commission approved the 
Construction Cooperative Agreement between the Airport 
and Caltrans for the Inbound/Outbound Ramps Project. 
Ms. Karen Watson of the Airport reports that this 
Construction Cooperative Agreement between the Airport 
and Caltrans was not subject to approval of the Board of 
Supervisors because (1) the Agreement did not meet the 
requirements of Charter Section 9.118, which requires 
Board of Supervisors approval for contracts with an 
anticipated expenditure of $10,000,000 or having a term 
in excess of 10 years, and (2) Caltrans only required 
approval of the Construction Cooperative Agreement by 
the Airport Commission, not the Board of Supervisors. 
The Inbound/Outbound Ramps Project was funded by 
Airport Revenue Bond funds previously appropriated by 
the Board of Supervisors as part of the Airport's Master 
Plan construction program, which was approved by the 
Board of Supervisors in December of 1992. The 
Inbound/Outbound Ramps Project consists of a new 
inbound and outbound freeway access ramp system, 
construction of improvements and modifications to Routes 
101 and 1-380 between Millbrae Avenue and the Route 
101/1-380 separation, seismic retrofit of three existing 
State Highway structures and construction of a BART 
crossing of Route 101. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Prior to issuing an encroachment permit 2 to begin 
construction of the Inbound/Outbound Ramps Project, 
according to Ms. Watson, Caltrans policy required a 
Maintenance Cooperative Agreement between the Airport 
and Caltrans. The Airport and Caltrans agreed that a 
final Maintenance Cooperative Agreement could not be 
entered into at that time because (1) the two parties had 
not yet agreed upon the final right of way alignment, (2) 
the two parties did not know the extent of landscaping 
that the project would warrant, (3) the Airport had not 
completed the construction of the customized Airport 
signs, and (4) the two parties needed to further clarify the 
necessary conditions that would warrant a traffic control 
project. As a result, Caltrans agreed to an interim 
Maintenance Cooperative Agreement, which was 
approved by the Airport Commission on May 20, 1997. 
This interim Maintenance Cooperative Agreement served 
as the basis for Caltrans issuing an encroachment permit 
to the Airport to begin construction of the 
Inbound/Outbound Ramps Project. Ms. Watson advises 
that the interim Maintenance Cooperative Agreement did 
not require Board of Supervisors approval because it was 
an interim agreement to be in effect for less than 10 
years, pending completion of the final agreement, which 
would replace the interim agreement. 

The interim Maintenance Cooperative Agreement 
allocates future maintenance responsibilities to the 
Airport and Caltrans. However, the maintenance 
responsibilities would become effective only upon 
Caltrans' acceptance of the Inbound/Outbound Ramps 
Project improvements. Caltrans will accept the project 
improvements upon (1) completion of the construction 
project, and (2) the execution of the proposed final 
Maintenance Cooperative Agreement. At such time, 
general maintenance responsibility for the State's right- 
of-way will be transferred from the Airport to Caltrans. 
According to Ms. Watson, this proposed final Maintenance 
Cooperative Agreement would take the place of the 
interim Maintenance Cooperative Agreement. 



2 The State requires that an encroachment permit be issued by the State to a contractor or developer 
before they do work inside of State property. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

To date, according to Ms. Watson, no maintenance costs 
have been incurred by the Airport's operating budget 
under the interim Maintenance Cooperative Agreement. 
Ms. Watson reports that any maintenance costs incurred 
by the Airport, since the interim Maintenance 
Cooperative Agreement was approved through the date 
this proposed final Maintenance Cooperative Agreement 
is executed, anticipated to be July 1, 2001, have been and 
will be borne by the Airport as a routine part of the 
construction contractor's budget. The project budget for 
the Inbound/Outbound Ramps Project is funded from 
Airport Revenue Bond funds previously appropriated by 
the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Watson reports that the 
Inbound/Outbound Ramps Project is expected to be 
completed by July 1, 2001. According to Ms. Watson, 
Caltrans will not reimburse the City for maintenance 
costs incurred up to the date when the Agreement is 
executed because it is Caltrans policy that the permittee 
doing work within Caltrans' right of way is responsible for 
maintaining that section of highway until Caltrans 
accepts the improvements. The Airport and Caltrans 
agreed to these conditions under the Construction 
Cooperative Agreement. Ms. Watson reports that the 
Airport is unable to estimate maintenance costs incurred 
to date because such maintenance costs are a routine part 
of construction and are not separately identified in the 
$94,000,000 construction budget for the Project. 

Budget: The summary budget, provided by the Airport, for the 

annual costs associated with the proposed final 
Maintenance Cooperative Agreement is as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Variable Message Sign/Customized Airport 
Sign Structures - Electrical 
Maintenance (See Comment No. 3) 


$2,000 


Variable Message Sign/Customized Airport 
Sign Structures - Structural 
Maintenance (See Comment No. 3) 


As needed 


Signal and Lighting Maintenance 
Reimbursement to Caltrans 


2,500 


Concrete Barriers Maintenance 
(See Comment No. 4) 


As Needed 


Replacement Parts for Red Obstruction 
Lights 


500 


Landscaping Maintenance (estimated cost 
for work done by Airport personnel) 


46,136 


Drainage Pipe Maintenance 


1.000 


TOTAL ANNUAL MAINTENANCE 
COSTS 


$52,136 



Comments: 



Attachment II, provided by the Airport, provides 
additional details for the summary budget above. 
According to Ms. Watson, the Airport estimates that on 
July 1, 2001, maintenance costs will begin to be incurred 
under the proposed final Maintenance Cooperative 
Agreement. Ms. Watson reports that all Airport 
maintenance costs would be paid by the Airport's annual 
operating budget, subject to appropriation approval by the 
Board of Supervisors. Ms. Watson further reports that 
such maintenance costs are included in the Airport's FY 
2001-02 operating budget. 

1. Ms. Watson states in a memorandum dated March 29, 
2001 (Attachment III) that the Airport does not have 
information on the cost to Caltrans to maintain facilities 
under the State's right of way. However, Ms. Watson 
further states that Caltrans maintenance costs will total 
more than $52,136 annually, which is the estimated 
annual cost to the Airport for the Airport's maintenance 
commitments under the final Maintenance Cooperative 
Agreement. As noted previously, the proposed final 
Maintenance Agreement allocates general maintenance 
responsibilities to the Airport for improvements within 
the Airport's right of way and general maintenance 
responsibilities to Caltrans for maintenance within the 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET.ANALYST 

30 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



State's right of way. The proposed final Maintenance 
Cooperative Agreement also allocates specific 
maintenance responsibilities to the Airport and Caltrans 
within the State's right of way, as noted previously. 

2. One time costs included in the proposed final 
Maintenance Cooperative Agreement include (1) a 
maximum of $60,000 to be paid by the Airport to Caltrans 
for Caltrans to develop software to monitor the level of 
traffic between the San Bruno Avenue on-ramp and the 
Route 101 off-ramp, and (2) an estimated $10,000,000 for 
a traffic control project, including constructing new lanes 
on the collector-distributor road between the San Bruno 
Avenue on-ramp and the Route 101 off-ramp, if deemed 
necessary by traffic performance data to be collected and 
analyzed by Caltrans. 

According to Ms. Watson, this traffic control project is not 
anticipated to exceed a total cost to the Airport of 
$10,000,000. The Airport would be financially responsible 
for this traffic control project because the congestion 
would be attributable to traffic that the Airport generates. 
If such a traffic control project were necessary, the lowest, 
most responsible responsive bidder would be selected by 
the Airport through a competitive bidding process to 
perform the design work and construction of this traffic 
control project. One-time costs of the traffic control project 
of an estimated $10,000,000 as well as the one-time cost 
of up to $60,000 payable by the Airport to Caltrans would 
be subject to appropriation approval by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

3. The Airport would be responsible for 20 customized 
Airport signs, including eight Variable Message Signs 
(VMS), all on State right of way at the Airport, at an 
estimated annual cost of $2,000 to the Airport. The 
customized Airport signs are designed for the Airport and 
direct motorists from the freeway to Airport destinations. 
VMSs are electronic display signs located on overhead 
sign panels. VMSs display messages that the Airport can 
change remotely by computer. Attachment IV, provided 
by the Airport, shows the VMS messages that have been 
approved by Caltrans. Ms. Watson advises that the 
Airport is currently unable to estimate the annual cost to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



maintain the eight VMSs. Such sign maintenance costs 
for such eight of the 20 signs would be covered by a one- 
year warranty during FY 2001-02, and would be subject to 
future Board- of Supervisors appropriation approval as 
part of the Airport's annual operating budget. As a result, 
as noted in Attachment II; VMS/CAS sign structure 
maintenance would be provided on an as-needed basis. 

4. Ms. Watson advises that concrete barriers would need 
to be maintained only if there was damage done to the 
concrete barrier from vehicles driving on Airport 
roadways. As noted in Attachment II, concrete barrier 
maintenance would be provided on an as-needed basis. 

5. As shown in the summary budget, signal and lighting 
maintenance reimbursement costs estimated at $2,500 
annually would be paid to Caltrans by the Airport. Such 
signal and lighting maintenance costs include (1) the 
Airport's 50 percent share of the total State maintenance 
cost, including electrical energy costs, for traffic control 
signals and safety lighting at ramp connections to San 
Bruno Avenue, and (2) the Airport's reimbursement to 
Caltrans for electrical maintenance of two of the 
customized Airport sign structures because lighting on 
these two sign structures are powered by electricity from 
a State power source instead of an Airport power source. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

32 






Attachment 



v*s 




Attachment II 



AIRPORT FINANCIAL COMMITTMENT IN CALTRANS MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 



ANNUAL COST ITEM 


ESTIMATED COST 


VMS/CAS Sign Structures - Electrical Maint. 


2,000 


VMS/CAS Sign Structures - Structural Maint. 


As Needed 


Signal & Lighting Maintenance Reimbursement 


2,500 


Concrete Barriers Maintenance 


As Needed 


Replacement Parts for Red Obstruction Lights 


500 


Landscaping Maintenance 


46,136 


Drainage Pipe Maintenance 


1,000 


Annual Total 


52,136 






POTENTIAL ONE TIME COST ITEMS 




Monitoring Software Development 


60,000 


C/D Roadway Improvements 


10,000,000 











34 



Attachment III 

AIRPORT COMMISSION 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

MEMORANDUM 

March 29, 2001 
TO: Budget Analyst 

FROM: Karen G.Watson 

SUBJECT: Final Maintenance Cooperative Agreement - Caltrans Cost 



The final Maintenance Cooperative Agreement covers a three mile section of Route 101 and a 
half mile section of Route 380 in which the Airport was permitted by Caltrans to construct 
facilities necessary to access Airport Master Plan improvements. Under the Maintenace 
Cooperative Agreement the Airport would be required to maintain only those improvements 
within the State right-of-way that were specially requested by the Airport, for Airport users. The 
vast majority of the improvements within the State right-of-way serve not only the Airport but 
other freeway users and will be maintained by Caltrans. 

Wc have been unable to obtain overall maintenance estimates from Caltrans for their facilities. 
However, it is obvious that the cost to Caltrans for maintenance on these sections of freeway will 
far exceed the Airport's minor maintenance commitment under the Maintenance Cooperative 
Agreement. 

If you have any questions, please contact me at 650-821-5037. 



Bob Rhoades 
Tom Kardos 
Peter Nardoza 



35 



Attachment IV 



EXHIBIT C 



Approved VMS Messages 

'parking 

garage open, garage full 
parking open, parking full 
caution. ..slow 
caution..prepare to stop. 

Additional Parking Messages or Garage Closure Scenarios 

DAILYPARKING 

PARKING 

FULL 

PARKING >» 

GARAGE OPEN 

Additional Messages Needed for Ramp Closure Scenarios 

RAMP CLOSED AHEAD 

RAMP CLOSED 

MCDONNELL ROAD 

INTL DETOUR 

USEMCDONNEL (sic) 

<« DETOUR 

ACCIDENT AHEAD 

PREPARE TO STOP 

Additional Messages Needed for Construction Closure Scenario 

ROAD WORK AHEAD 

1500 FT (ETC.) 

DETOUR AHEAD 

RIGHT LANE...CLOSED AHEAD (or LEFT) 

LANE CLOSED AHEAD 

FLAGGER AHEAD 

PREPARE TO STOP 



Source: Airport ~, 



€hee+ I. 4 1 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 4 - File 01-0108 

Note: This was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of February 
21, 2001. 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Assessor-Recorder's Office 

Ordinance appropriating $726,726 from the General Fund 
Reserve to fund a contract with KPMG to design and 
implement a reengineering plan for the Assessor-Recorder's 
Office for Fiscal Year 2000-01 

$726,726 

General Fund Reserve 

The proposed supplemental appropriation for $726,726 is 
for the purpose of expanding an existing $400,000 contract 
with KPMG to develop and implement a reengineering 
plan, and assist in reducing the Department's backlog in 
the processing of deeds for a total contract cost of 
$1,126,726, for the Assessor-Recorder's Office for Fiscal 
Year 2000-01. This reengineering plan analyzes the 
department's work processes in order to identify changes 
the department must make to run more effectively. Ms. 
Onyemem advises that the Assessor-Recorder's Office 
originally contracted with KPMG, in consultation with the 
Mayor's and Controller's Offices, in June of 2000 to 
improve efficiencies in the department. KPMG agreed to 
identify and re-engineer process inefficiencies, conduct a 
training needs assessment, provide necessary training, 
improve customer service and help the department 
transition into a new computer system. The Assessor- 
Recorder's Office included $400,000 in its FY 2000-01 
budget for this KPMG contract. Ms. Onyemem advises 
that the Assessor-Recorder's Office negotiated with the 
Controller's Office to include this $400,000 contract within 
a larger City contract with KPMG (discussed further in 
Comment No. 3 below). 

According to Ms. Onyemem, in September of 2000, and 
again in October of 2000, the Assessor-Recorder's Office 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

- 37 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



requested that KPMG revise and expand the scope of its 
work plan in the three ways listed below. The Budget 
Analyst notes that the Assessor-Recorder's Office did have 
authority to request from KPMG proposals for expanding 
the scope of the existing $400,000 contract. However, the 
Assessor-Recorder's Office did not have the authority to 
finalize the expanded contract discussed below without 
first obtaining approval from the Board of Supervisors of 
this subject additional appropriation of $726,726. 

As reported to the Finance and Labor Committee on 
January 17, 2001, this request of $726,726 was for the 
following three KPMG projects: 

(1) After KPMG and the Assessor-Recorder's Office agreed 
to the terms of the original $400,000 contract, in 
September of 2000 the Assessor-Recorder's Office 
directed KPMG to help manage and facilitate the 
reduction of the department's backlog in processing 
deeds, a priority for the Assessor-Recorder's Office. The 
proposed expanded work plan would expand the 
original contract by $207,926 to reduce the Assessor- 
Recorder's backlog in processing deeds. 

(2) KPMG also agreed to expand the scope of its contract 
with the Assessor-Recorder's Office at a cost of 
$172,664 for the expanded scope management plan. 
This expanded scope focuses on developing a new 
management strategy and reorganizing the 
department. 

(3) Finally, KPMG was to implement a reengineering plan 
for the Assessor-Recorder at a cost of $346,136. 

These three component costs of (a) 8207,926, (b) $172,664 
and (c) $346,136 totaled $726,726, the subject of this 
request and together with KPMG's existing contract of 
$400,000 to assist the Assessor, the total contract with 
KPMG would have been $1,126,726. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

38 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



A summary budget for the total originally proposed 
contract costs of $1,126,726 with KPMG were as follows: 



SUMMARY 




Reengineering Plan 
Original Budget 
Expanded Scope/Deed Backlog 


$400,000 
207,926* 


Revised Subtotal 


$607,926 


Expanded Scope/Management Plan 
Implementation of Reengineering Plan 


172,664* 
346,136* 


Total Contract Costs 


$1,126,726 



*Total of $726,726, which is the subject of this request. 

As shown in the table on the following page, the hourly 
rage being charged by KPMG ranges from $121.28 to 
$281.14. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Budget for 
Reengineering Plan: 



The budget for the originally proposed $1,126,726 contract 
with KPMG, including the subject $726,726 supplemental 
appropriation, is as follows: 



Contract with KPMG 



Hourly 
Rate 



Number 
of Hours 



Total 



Reengineering Plan 
Professional Fees 

Managing Director 
Project Manager 
Senior Consultants 
Consultants 
Analysts 
Sub-contractor 

Deed Backlog Completion 

Professional Fees 

Managing Director 
Project Manager 
Senior Consultants 
Analysts 



KPMG's Other Expenses* 



Subtotal Professional Fees 



$281.14 
$165.38 
$148.84 
$148.84 
$148.84 
$121.28 



$281.14 
$165.38 
$148.84 
$148.84 



32 

418 
408 
492 
504 
36 



1,890 



8 
422 
904 
144 



Subtotal Professional Fees 
Total Professional Fees 



1,478 
3,368 



8,997 
69,129 
60,727 
73,229 
75,016 

4,366 



$291,464 



2,249 

69,790 

134,551 

21,433 



$228,023 

519,487 

88,439 



''Subtotal Reengineering/Backlog 



3,368 



$607,926 



Expanded Scope/Management Plan 
Professional Fees 

Managing Director 
Project Manager 
Senior Consultants 



$281.14 
$165.38 
$148.84 



240 
320 
200 



Subtotal Professional Fees 



760 



KPMG's Other Expenses 



$67,474 
52,922 
29,768 



, 



$150,164 
22,500 



^Subtotal Management Plan 



760 



S172.6M 



Estimates for 

Implementation of Reengineering Plan 

Professional Fees 

Managing Director 
Project Manager 
Senior Consultants 
Analysts 



$281.14 
$165.38 
$148.84 
$148.84 



Subtotal Professional Fees 



KPMG's Other Expenses 



200 
400 
400 
800 



1,800 



$56,228 
66,152 
59,536 

119,072 



$300,988 
45,148 



Subtotal Implementation Estimates 



1,800 



$346,136 



Total KPMG Contract 



5,928 



$1,126,726 



Less $400,000 included in FY 2000-01 Budget 



(400,000) 



Total Supplemental Appropriation 



$726,726 



* Other Expenses include mileage, parking, meals and housing. 
** Already expended or incurred (See Comment No. 1 below). 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Comments on 

Reengineering Plan: 1. Of this total subject request of $726,726, according to 
Ms. Onyemem, KPMG has completed its work and 
incurred expenses for the first two components of this 
subject request, namely $207,926 for reducing the 
Assessor's backlog in processing deeds, and $172,664 for 
the expanded scope management plan. Therefore of this 
total subject request of $726,726 KPMG has already 
incurred expenditures of $380,590. 

2. The Budget Analyst notes that the Assessor's Office 
has incurred these additional costs of $380,590 without 
first obtaining prior appropriation approval by the Board 
of Supervisors. The Assessor-Recorder's Office did not 
have the authority to finalize an expanded contract with 
KPMG for such additional expenditures without first 
obtaining prior appropriation approval by the Board of 
Supervisors. Therefore, the Budget Analyst recommends 
that the proposed ordinance be amended to provide for 
retroactive authorization. 

3. According to Ms. Onyemem, the Assessors Office 
negotiated with the Controller's Office to include the 
original $400,000 contract with KPMG within a larger 
City contract with KPMG in order to begin a 
reengineering of the department's business practices as 
soon as possible. According to Mr. Hymel of the 
Controller's Office, additional services being performed 
by KPMG are being done under the Controller's City- 
wide audit contract with KPMG. Mr. Hymel advises that 
this contract, which was competitively bid and approved 
by the Civil Service Commission in May of 1999, allows 
the City to contract with KPMG for as needed auditing 
and accounting services. The contract with KPMG is a 
three-year contract with two one-year renewal options. 
Mr. Hymel advises that the original KPMG contractual 
services for the Assessor-Recorder is limited to $400,000, 
which was included in the FY 2000-2001 Assessor- 
Recorder budget and did not include this subject 
supplemental appropriation request of $726,726 of which 
KPMG has already incurred expenditures totaling 
$380,590. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



4. At its January 17, 2001 meeting, the Finance and 
Labor Committee requested that the Assessor-Recorder 
attempt to reduce the contractual services costs with 
KPMG and instead complete some of the contract work 
in-house. In response to this request, at the Finance 
Committee's February 21, 2001 meeting, the Assessor- 
Recorder proposed that a portion of the third component 
of KPMG's work, namely the Implementation of the 
Reengineering Plan, be accomplished on an in-house 
basis by staff of the Assessor-Recorder's Office. Having 
the Assessor-Recorder's Office complete a portion of the 
implementation plan itself, as opposed to hiring KPMG 
to complete the work, would reduce KPMG's fees for 
implementation by $192,592, from $346,136 to $153,544, 
as follows: 



(a) Development of Duties and 
Responsibilities Documents and Desk 

Procedures $100,285 

(b) Implementation of Reclassifications for 
Appraisers and Clerks 39,300 

(c) Related expenses 13.959 

Total $153,544 

The details of this reduced amount of $153,544 is shown 
in Attachment I provided by the Assessor-Recorder. 

5. In addition, since the Finance Committee meeting of 
February 21, 2001, the Chair of the Finance Committee 
met with KPMG officials. As a result of such meetings, as 
shown in Attachment II, in a memorandum of March 23, 
2001 from the Managing Director of KPMG to the Chair 
of the Finance Committee, the Managing Director of 
KPMG wrote, "In recognition of our ongoing business 
relationship with the City and County, and the unique 
circumstances that KPMG Consulting and the Assessor's 
Office encountered in this project, we would like to offer 
a $75,000 reduction in our project cost." This $75,000 
reduction would reduce the $380,590 in fees owed to 
KPMG by the Assessor-Recorder's Office for services 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



already provided (discussed in Comment No.l), for a 
revised amount of $305,590. 

Therefore, the total proposed supplemental appropriation 
should be reduced by $267,592 ($192,592 plus $75,000), 
from $726,726 to $459,134 as follows: 



Revised KPMG Fees 


Amount 


Fees owed by Assessor-Recorder's Office 

for services already provided 
Reduction in Fees owed to KPMG 


$380,590 
(75,000) 


Subtotal 


305,590 


Fees for Implementation of Reengineering Plan 

Reduction in KPMG's Services because of work to be done in- 

house by Assessor-Recorder instead of contracting with 

KPMG 


346,136 
(192,592) 


Subtotal 


$153,544 






Total Revised Fees to be Paid to KPMG 


$459,134 



Recommendations: 



1. Reduce the proposed supplemental appropriation by 
$267,592 from $726,726 to $459,134, in accordance with 
Comment No. 5 above. 



2. Amend the proposed ordinance to provide for 
retroactive authorization for costs previously incurred, 
without first obtaining prior appropriation approval from 
the Board of Supervisors in accordance with Comment 
No. 2 above. 

3. Approval of the proposed ordinance, as amended, is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors because the 
Assessor-Recorder's Office did not have the authority to 
incur additional costs of $380,590 without first obtaining 
prior appropriation approval from the Board of 
Supervisors. However as previously stated, it should be 
noted that KPMG has agreed to reduce such fees to the 
City by $75,000 as a result of its meeting with the Chair 
of the Finance Committee. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 



Attachment 



Contract with KPMG 


Hourly 

Rate 


Number 
of Hours 


Total 


Revised Estimates for 

Implementation of Reengineering Plan Components 
Professional Fees 

Managing Director 
Project Manager 
Senior Consultants 
Analysts 

Subtotal Professional Fees 
KPMG Other Expenses at 10% of Professional Fees 

Total-Implementation Estimates 


$281.14 
S165.38 
$148.84 
$148.84 


22 
344 

314 
200 


$6,186 
56,892 
46,738 
29,759 


880 


$139,585 

13,959 


880 


$ 153,544 



Source: Assessor-Recorder's Office 



Attachment II 



JS3S8® 



Consulting 



400 Capitol Mall, Suite 800 Telephone 916 551 3100 

Sacramemo. CA B5B14 Facsimile 916 5513030 



Murch23,2001 



Supervisor Mark Leno 

City and County of San Francisco 

Ciiy Hall, Room 244 

1 Dr. Carlton B, Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 94102-4689 



Dear Supervisor Leno: 

I appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and Assessor Ward on Wednesday, March 21, 
2001 to discuss KPMG Consulting' s work with the Assessor's Office. As we discussed, 
KPMG Consulting has assisted the Assessor's Office with eliminating its deed processing 
backlog, conducting a business process reengineering review and performing a management 
and organization study, 

As a result of the work performed to date, KPMG Consulting has helped the Assessor's 
Office eliminate a greater than 50,000 deed backlog that built up in the past two years during 
the implementation of its new automated deed system. This backlog represented more than 
$200 million in assessed valuation that was placed on this year's tax roll. Based on a 
conservative estimate, this resulted in more than $2 million in tax revenue for the City and 
County of San Francisco. Moreover, the elimination of the deed backlog significantly 
improved the accuracy of the tax bills reviewed by the City and County's property owners. 

In recognition of our ongoing business relationship with the City and County, and the unique 
circumstances that KPMG Consulting and the Assessor's Office encountered in this project, 
we would like to offer a $75,000 reduction in our project cost. 

KPMG Consulting appreciates the dedicated work of the Assessor's Office management and 
staff in conducting this project. We also value our client relationship with the City and 
County of San Francisco. 



Sincerely, 
KPMGCpnsulting 




Robert T. O'Neill 
Managing Director 



r«ur. <•«.-« 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 5 - File 01-0532 



Department: 



Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 
Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) 

Resolution approving the Cooperative Agreement 
between the City and County of San Francisco and 
the State of California Department of 
Transportation (Caltrans) for the construction and 
financing of a bicycle overcrossing and at-grade 
pedestrian/bicycle path widening adjacent to 
Highway 101 at Cesar Chavez Street in San 
Francisco and directing and ratifying certain 
actions in connection with this Resolution. 

$3,098,369 (See Comment No. 1) 

State Transportation Improvement Program grant 
funds 



Required Match: 
Description: 



None 

In December of 1999, the Board of Supervisors 
authorized the Department of Parking and Traffic 
(DPT) to accept and expend up to $3,986,000 in 
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) 
funds in connection with the construction of Cesar 
Chavez Street improvements, including the 
construction of bicycle, pedestrian and traffic 
circulation improvements (File 99-2192). The 
proposed resolution would approve a Cooperative 
Agreement between the City, through DPW, and 
Caltrans for the construction and financing of a 
bicycle overcrossing and an expansion of an at- 
grade pedestrian and bicycle path along Cesar 
Chavez Street, within the Caltrans Highway 101 
right-of-way. 

Specifically, the proposed project would involve the 
construction of an approximately 300 foot long and 
12 foot wide bicycle overcrossing along the north 
side of Cesar Chavez Street between Vermont 
Street and Portrero Avenue. This bicycle 
overcrossing would include the addition of lighting 
fixtures and wire mesh fencing along both sides of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

46 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



the overcrossing. In addition, the proposed project 
includes the widening to approximately 12 feet of 
an existing eight foot wide bicycle and pedestrian 
path on the opposite, south side of Cesar Chavez 
Street, between Potrero Avenue and Vermont 
Street. The proposed project would extend under 
Highway 101 in order to provide a safer path for 
bicyclists and pedestrians who want to travel east 
and westbound along Cesar Chavez Street. 

In addition, as part of the Art Commission's Art 
Enrichment Program, the proposed project will 
include the construction of a metal sculpture 
depicting Quetzalcoatl, a feathered serpent god of 
air and water which will be placed at the 
northeastern entrance to the bicycle overcrossing, 
near the northbound Highway 101 on-ramp. This 
sculpture, which was designed and constructed by 
the neighborhood artist, Mr. Pepe Ozan, will be 
located eight feet above the ground and will span 
over and around the bicycle and pedestrian path, 
forming an entranceway portal. 

Under the proposed Cooperative Agreement, DPW 
would be responsible for planning, designing and 
constructing the proposed bicycle, pedestrian and 
transit improvements. In addition, the City would 
be responsible for maintaining the lighting fixtures, 
including electrical and energy costs. Caltrans 
would be responsible for the ongoing maintenance 
of the remainder of the improvements. 



Planning 




$67,000 


Design 




250,000 


Construction 




2,293,369 


Construction Contingency 


(10%) 


229,000 


Construction Support 




245,000 


Art Enrichment 




$14,000 


Total 




$3,098,369 



The Attachment, provided by Ms. Lesley Wong of 
DPW provides additional budget details. As shown 
in the Attachment, DPW staff, with assistance from 
two consultants provided the Planning and Design 
work and will provide the Construction Support for 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

47 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

this project. Ms. Wong advises that the two 
consultants, (1) Biggs Cardosa Associates and (2) 
AGS- Geotechnical Consultants were selected from 
a list of as-needed consultants, who are selected 
each year by DPW through a request for proposal 
process. 

Comments: 1. As discussed above, in 1999, the Board of 

Supervisors authorized the City to accept and 
expend up to $3,986,000 of State Transportation 
Improvement Program funds for the proposed 
Cesar Chavez bicycle and pedestrian improvement 
project. However, as shown above, the total 
projected cost of the proposed project is $3,098,369, 
or $887,631 less than the up to $3,986,000 of grant 
funds authorized for this project. 

According to Ms. Tina Olson of DPW, the State has 
programmed up to $3,986,000 of STIP grant funds 
for this project, however, the City will only receive 
the amount of funds that are actually expended on 
this project. Ms. Olson advises that these grant 
funds are received by the City on a reimbursement 
basis. Mr. Ed Stewart of the County Transportation 
Authority advises that any of the up to $3,986,000 
of STIP funds remaining at the completion of the 
project, that are not spent for this project, would 
not be available for use by the City for any other 
City project, but instead would be reallocated by 
the State. 

2. Ms. Wong advises that, in September of 2000, 
the proposed bicycle and pedestrian project was 
advertised under DPWs competitive bidding 
process. According to Ms. Wong, both of the bids 
that were received were rejected because these bids 
were significantly higher than DPWs estimates. 
The project was re-advertised in December of 2000. 
Based on the second bidding process, DPW received 
two bids, one from Mitchell Engineering for 
$2,503,442 and one from Valentine Corporation for 
$2,293,369. Ms. Wong advises that DPW awarded 
the contract to Valentine Corporation, the low 
bidder, and a notice to proceed with the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

48 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

construction work was issued to Valentine 
Corporation on March 12, 2001. 

3. According to Ms. Wong, Caltrans requires that 
the subject Cooperative Agreement be approved by 
the Board of Supervisors before Caltrans will issue 
an encroachment permit for the proposed 
construction work. According to Ms. Wong, the 
contractor, Valentine Corporation, cannot begin 
their construction work within the Highway 101 
right-of-way until the contractor receives this 
encroachment permit from Caltrans. 

Ms. Wong advises that once Caltrans issues the 
encroachment permit to the contractor, the 
construction will begin. According to Ms. Wong, 
construction is anticipated to begin by mid-April of 
2001 and to be completed in approximately one 
year, or by the Spring of 2002. 

4. The proposed Cooperative Agreement states that 
the City shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless 
the State from all project claims against the State 
and the payment or performance bond by 
contractors and all other claimants and the 
proposed Cooperative Agreement also provides for 
reciprocal City and State indemnifications 
regarding future claims. Mr. John Malamut of the 
City Attorney's Office advises that he has reviewed 
the indemnification provisions in the subject 
Cooperative Agreement and that these provisions 
are appropriate for the proposed project. 

5. Ms. Olson and Mr. Stewart advise that the 
$14,000 Art Enrichment project is ineligible to be 
funded with the subject $3,986,000 of STIP funds. 
Therefore, DPT and DPW are requesting that the 
subject resolution be continued for one week, to the 
Finance Committee Meeting of April 11, 2001, in 
order to resolve the funding source for the proposed 
Art Enrichment project. 

Recommendation: Continue the proposed resolution to the April 11, 

2001 Finance Committee Meeting, as requested by 
DPT and DPW. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

49 



PROJECT BUDGET 



Attachment 



Phase 
Planning 



Design 



DPW - Electrical 

DPW- Sts & Hwys 

AGS - Geotechnical Consultants 



DPW - Electrical 

DPW - Sts & Hwys 

DPW - Landscape Architecture 

DPW - Structural 

Biggs Cardosa Associates 

AGS - Geotechnical Consultants 

DPW-BCM 
Construction 
ConstructionContingency 
Construction Support 

DPW - Electrical 

DPW- Sts & Hwys 

DPW -Structural 

Biggs Cardosa Associates 

DPW-BCM 
Art Enrichment 

Total: 



Amount 

$67,000.00 



$1,000.00 
$17,000.00 
$49,000.00 

$30,000.00 
$62,000.00 

$2,000.00 

$14,600.00 

$129,000.00 

$1,700.00 
$10,700.00 



$250,000.00 



$2,293,369.00 

$229,000 

$245,000.00 



$6,000.00 
$40,000.00 

$1,400.00 

$44,000.00 

$153,600.00 



$14,000.00 
$3,098,369.00 



Source: Department of Public Works 



50 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 6 -File 01-0316 

Department: Department of Administrative Services (DAS) 

Item: Hearing to consider applications from various agencies to 

participate in the City's 2001 Joint Annual Fundraising Drive. 

Description: Section 16.93-3 of the Administrative Code requires the 

Department of Administrative Services (a) to review all 
applications from charitable organizations which request to 
participate in the City's Annual Joint Fundraising Drive, and 
(b) to recommend to the Board of Supervisors charitable 
organizations which qualify to participate in the City's Annual 
Joint Fundraising Drive in accordance with criteria set forth in 
Section 16.93-2 of the Administrative Code. 

The Department of Administrative Services reports that it has 
reviewed the applications from nine charitable organizations 
that have applied to participate in the City's 2001 Annual Joint 
Fundraising Drive in accordance with the criteria delineated in 
Section 16.93-2 of the Administrative Code. The Department of 
Administrative Services reports that all nine charitable 
organizations comply with the Section 16.93-2 criteria and 
recommends that all nine organizations be approved to 
participate in the City's 2001 Annual Joint Fundraising Drive. 
The summary of findings reported by the Department of 
Administrative Services is contained in the Attachment to this 
report. 

Section 16.93-4 of the Administrative Code also requires that 
the Board of Supervisors designate, by resolution, prior to May 
1, 2001, those agencies that qualify to participate in the 2001 
Annual Joint Fundraising Drive. The nine charitable 
organizations that have applied and been recommended by the 
Department of Administrative Services to participate in the 
City's 2001 Annual Joint Fundraising Drive are as follows: 

• Bay Area Black United Fund, Inc. 

• Community Health Charities 

• Earth Share of California (Environmental Federation of 
California) 

• Local Independent Charities 

• International Service Agencies 

• Mayor's Fund for the Homeless 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

51 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



• San Francisco Youth Fund 

• United Way of the Bay Area 

• Mayor's Youth Employment for the Summer Fund (for 
which the Private Industry Council of San Francisco, Inc. 
serves as fiscal agent) 

1. Section 16.93-1 of the San Francisco Administrative Code 
states that deductions from employee pay warrants for 
charitable organizations shall only be withheld based upon 
authorizations made by employees in the Annual Joint 
Fundraising Drive. 

2. According to Ms. Jill Lerner of DAS, all of the 
organizations listed above participated in the City's 2000 
Annual Joint Fundraising Drive. 

Prepare in and report out a resolution designating the nine 
qualifying charitable organizations, as recommended by the 
Department of Administrative Services, to participate in the 
City's 2001 Annual Joint Fundraising Drive. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

52 



ATTACHMENT 

Page 1 of 4 
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

2001 Review of Applications 
To Participate in Annual Fundraising Drive 



SUMMARY OF MF.THQDQLOGY AND FINDINGS 

Our review consisted of an examination of the materials provided in File 010316 and telephone 
conversations with representatives from applicant organizations. We were advised by Deputy 
City Attorney Ted Lakey that telephone inquiries were appropriate to clarify information 
supplied by the applicants. This is the same method we have used in past years to prepare this 
report to the Board of Supervisors. 

All nine organizations that applied for participation in the 2001 Joint Fundraising Drive were in 
compliance with the criteria established by the Board of Supervisors as delineated in the 
Administrative Code. 

CRITERIA 

Following is a list of the criteria established by the Board of Supervisors and information as to 
how the applicants met each requirement. New legislation enacted in 1997 includes in the 
annual joint fund-raising drive any Mayor's fund which is created to further social causes. 
Under Administrative Code Section 16.93-2, only subsections (b), (c) and (e) apply to the 
Mayor's funds. All other agencies must satisfy subsections (a) through (e). 

Criterion A : Be a federated agency representing ten flO) or more charitable organizations of 
which 50 percent shall represent organizations located in the counties of 
San Francisco, San Mateo. Santa Clara. Alameda. Contra Costa and Marin. 

According to the City Attorney, "located in the counties" may be defined as having offices, 
fundraising or otherwise doing business in those counties. 

1. Bav Area Black United Fund. Inc. 

Bay Area Black United Fund, Inc. represents 38 agencies, all of which 
are located in the Bay Area. 

2. Community Health Charities 

Community Health Charities represents more than 45 national health 
organizations of which 50 percent or more are located in the Bay Area. 



ATTACHMENT 
Summary of Findings 
2001 Review of ADplications Page 2 of 4 



3. Earth Share of California (Environmental Federation of California^) 

Earth Share of California represents 87 organizations of which 50 percent or more 
are located in the Bay Area. 

4. Local Independent Charities CLIO 

Local Independent Charities represents over 150 organizations of which 50 
percent or more are located in the Bay Area. 

5. International Service Agencies CISA) 

International Service Agencies represents more than 40 charities of which 50 
percent or more are located in the Bay Area. 

6. United Wav of the Bay Area 

United Way of the Bay Area represents over 300 organizations, all of which are 
located in the Bay Area. 



Criterion B: The federated agency or Mavor's fund must certify to the Board of Supervisors 
that the Federal Internal Revenue Service has determined that contributions to all 
of the represented charitable organizations or Mayor's funds are tax deductible. 

Based on consultation in years past with the City Attorney, we have concluded that all the 
applicants complied with this requirement. 

Criterion C: The federated agency must have been in existence with 10 or more 

qualified charities for at least one year prior to the date of application 
and provide satisfactory evidence to that effect at the time of filing an 
application with the Board. Mavor's funds shall submit their most recent 
financial statement to the Board of Supervisors on an annual basis. 

This criterion was met by all agencies. 



Criterion D : The federated agency must submit its most recent certified audit at the 
time of filing an application with the Board. 






Summary of Findings ATTACHMENT 

2001 Review of Applications 

Page 3 of 4 



All agencies provided these documents, as detailed below: 



1. Bay Area Black United Fund, Inc. provided a Statement of Financial Position as of 
December 31, 1999 with an Auditors' Report by Grant & Smith, LLP, dated February 15, 
2000. 

2. Community Health Charities of California provided financial statements for the year 
ended June 30, 2000, with an Independent Auditors' Report prepared by Rooney, Ida, 
Nolt and Ahem, CPAs, dated July 30, 2000. 

3. Earth Share of California provided financial statements for the years ending September 
30, 1999 and 1998 along with the Auditors' Report by Bregante & Company, LLP, dated 
January 27, 2000. 

4. International Service Agencies provided a statement of financial position for the years 
ending June 30, 2000 and 1999 with an Independent Auditor's Report by the Lang 
Group, Chtd., dated August 22, 2000. 

5. Local Independent Charities provided financial statements for the years ended April 30, 
2000 and 1999 with an Independent Auditors' Report by Maze &. Associates 
Accountancy Corporation, dated November 3, 2000. 

6. United Way of the Bay Area provided combined financial statements for the years ended 
June 30, 2000 and 1999 with a Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants by 
Grant Thorton, LLP, dated November 17, 2000. 

7. Mayor's Homeless Fund, created by ordinance (Administrative Code Section 10.1 17-33), 
provided a Statement of Balance dated December 26, 2000. 

8. The San Francisco Youth Fund is served by the Every Child Can Learn Foundation as its 
fiscal agent. The Every Child Can Learn Foundation provided a Statement of Financial 
Position for the years ending June 30, 1999 and 1998, with an Independent Auditors' 
Report by Hood & Strong, LLP, dated August 6, 1999. 

9. Mayor's Youth Employment for the Summer Fund (YES) is served by the Private 
Industry Council ("PIC") as its fiscal agent. The PIC submitted audited financial 
statements for the two year period ended June 30, 1997 with an Independent Auditor's 
Report by Izabal, Bemaciak & Company, dated June 26, 1998. 



55 



' ATTACHMENT 
Summary of Findings 

2001 Review of Applications Page A of A 



Criterion E: Agencies that wish to participate in the Annual Drive are required to submit 
applications to the Board of Su pervisors that include all informat ion that may 
be relevant to the criteria listed in the Section. 

As stated earlier in this report, the City Attorney advised that the applications may be considered 
complete although clarification may have been necessary to conduct this review. 

All applicants provided documentation in their letters of application to the Board of Supervisors 
or confirmed by telephone that they are in compliance with the requirements of Section 16.93-2 
which constitutes "certification." 

Therefore, all applicants were in compliance with Criterion E. 



56 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Ttem 7 - File 01-0462 



Item: 



Description: 



Hearing to address the growth of Special Assistant employees in 
the City and County of San Francisco. 

According to a report by Department of Human Resources 
presented to the Finance Committee in November of 2000, the 
Special Assistant series of job codes was adopted by the civil 
Service Commission in 1993 to consolidate 31 existing job codes 
into a broad series of generic job codes, and thereby facilitate 
classification and hiring processes. The series was designed for use 
by all operating departments to staff special projects or to perform 
unique functions that are not reflected within the level and scope 
of existing classes. Such positions are generally Provisional 
(subject to conversion to regular Civil Service Classifications 
within three years) or Exempt Appointments. Both provisional and 
exempt positions can be appointed by the Mayor and Department 
Heads without holding civil service examinations for these 
positions subject to budgetary approval of subject positions and 
appropriation of funding by the Board of Supervisors. 

The Budget Analyst has reviewed and summarized data provided 
by the Controller's Office on the growth of Special Assistant 
positions over the last five years. 

Attachment 1 to this report shows the number of Special Assistant 
full time equivalent (FTE) positions budgeted, by classification, for 
December of 1995 and December of 2000. Attachment 1 also 
compares total salaries for such positions, using December of 2000 
rates of pay. Attachment 1 shows the following: 

• The total number of Special Assistant FTEs has increased from 
243 positions in 1995 to 573 positions in 2000, an increase of 
330 positions or 135.8 percent; 

• The total salaries for Special Assistant positions, using 
December of 2000 rates of pay, has increased from $15,651,822 
in 1995 to $41,675,592 in 2000, an increase of $26,023,770 or 
166.3 percent; 

• Average budgeted salaries for Special Assistant positions, using 
December of 2000 rates of pay, has increased from $64,285 in 
1995 to $72,673 in 2000, an increase of 13 percent or $8,388 in 
average salary per position. The average salary for the 330 
additional Special Assistant positions created between 
December of 1995 and December of 2000 is $78,861. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



As can be seen in Attachment 1, the budgeted salary for the 
Special Assistant positions in December of 2000 ranges from a low 
of $29,198 to a high of $113,042. 

Attachment 2 to this report provides a summary of budgeted 
Special Assistant full time equivalent FTE positions by 
Department including the number of positions and salaries (at 
December of 2000 rates of pay) for December of 1995 and 
December of 2000, and the changes in positions and changes in 
salaries for such Special Assistant positions. 

The table below provides a summary by Department for Special 
Assistant budgeted FTE positions as shown in Attachment 2, for 
the Departments whose salary costs for such Special Assistant 
positions have increased by amounts greater than $250,000 
annually. 





No. 


Dec- 95 • 


No. 


Dec- 2000 


Change 




Department Title 


FTE 


Salaries at 


FTE 


Salaries at 


in . 


Change in 




Dec-95 


Current Pay 


Dec-00 


Current Pay Positions 


Costs 


Airport Commission 


13 


SI, 146,085 


86 


57,669,130 


73 


S6~523,045 


Mayor 


82 


5,029,892 


138 


9,006,740 


56 


3,976,848 


Municipal Transportation Agency 


3 


277,019 


30 


2,453,819 


27 


2,176,800 


Business and Economic Development 


- 


- 


28 


2,012,998 


28 


2,012,998 


Elections 


- 


- 


14 


1,089,643 


14 


1,089,643 


Human Services 


4 


302,754 


17 


1,336,131 


13 


1,033,376 


Children, Youth & Their Families 


9 


466,298 


25 


1,402,503 


16 


936,205 


Board of Supervisors 


3 


115,708 


20 


933,908 


17 


818,200 


Emergency Communications Department 


- 


- 


10 


812,061 


10 


812,061 


Administrative Services 


34 


2,271,427 


45 


3,034,034 


11 


762,607 


Admin Svcs - Convention Facilities Mgmt 


1 


59,657 


13 


810,512 


12 


750,855 


Treasurer/Tax Collector 


1 


75,865 


11 


764,587 


10 


688,722 


Department of Public Health 


17 


1,260,238 


24 


1,903,933 


7 


643,695 


Controller 


3 


129,493 


11 


756,886 


8 


627,393 


Recreation and Park Commission 






9 


537,809 


9 


537,809 


Department of Building Inspection 






6 


465,118 


6 


465,118 


Port 


1 


46,197 


5 


408,33C 


4 


362,133 


Department of Public Works 


13 


934,142 


15 


1,287,748 


2 


353,605 


Environment 






5 


328,76' 


5 


328,767 


Parking and Traffic Commission 


3 


171,406 


6 


474,78" 


3 


303,381 


Aging and Adult Services 






3 


263,60f 


3 


263,605 


Fire Department 






3 


256,114 


3 


256,114 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Comment: 



As can be seen in Attachment 2, the costs for Special Assistant 
positions in the Airport, Mayor's Office, Municipal Transportation 
Agency, Department of Business and Economic Development, 
Department of Elections and Human Services Department have all 
increased by more than $1,000,000 from December of 1995 to 
December of 2000 including increased amounts of $6,523,045 for 
the Airport, $3,976,848 for the Mayor's Office, $2,176,800 for the 
Municipal Transportation Agency, $2,012,998 for the Department 
of Business and Economic Development, $1,089,643 for the 
Department of Elections, and $1,033,376 for the Department of 
Human Services, 

Attachment 3 to this report provides a detailed listing of Special 
Assistant budgeted FTE positions by Department, again including 
the number of positions and salaries (at December of 2000 rates of 
pay) for December of 1995 and December of 2000, and the changes 
in positions and changes in salaries for such Special Assistant 
positions. 

According to Ms. Michelle Modena, Deputy Director of 
Administrative Services for the Department of Human Resources 
(DHR), DHR intends to provide a report to the Finance Committee 
prior to its meeting of April 4, 2000 on the use of Special Assistant 
positions by City Departments. That report will provide updated 
information on the following points, according to Ms. Modena: 

• The history of the Special Assistants classification; 

• The DHR process used to review and recommend Special 
Assistants; and, 

• Types of Special Assistant Appointments (Provisional 
Appointments for new positions that can only exist for three 
years pending the creation of new or modified regular civil 
service classifications, and Exempt Appointments). 




i~? 



'. <4&-^ 



Harvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Peskin 



Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Steve Kawa 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 




Attachment 1 



Noq^ninnvinofflNNNinNonfflONoq 
Tf(o'<DsiD<oNd'-ndsod(Da)iDi-doiNC) 

Nt-TfTr010ntIIMNinN€rNOI0100S«)«) 
1 ID N t-"cO T-NntMirTN'- ' ' ' 



, co in 
o n cm in 01 s t- 

t- pi oo o m co o 



o> oi_ «) q s <o r*-_ o> 

of co' co" co" co" co" oj in" m" co id t" t n >- co" co _ 

<3>T-oinr-inmmr~-cD'<-co-<T^r'<-n'-^rnco 

* K) tf (i) CM N f) Ol 0) C9 V V <- W Ol " CM V N N 

v> 01 •<? co co" co" co t- 



*•-« 



cm n cm oi i- o co 
01 r~~ i»~ co ^r to 
t- tj- en t- o •v 



oimcoocoococnocM 

nco'-vincMOT'-co 
cocomoincncococooj'ro 



tt in co 

CM CM t- 

m co o 



cMcjicioiincMCMinsfflT-coinoiiOi-mo s co s 

inT-oioioT-cMn<-nmcoi-coTt-cooi in co co 

i- cm m s o n en o co s n <■_ t_ n oi n in cn cm 
i~" ■<-" •» i-" cm" cm" t- co n t n ^r cm 



<j> co 

CO CM 
i- O 



firvscoNNncoininNcoiioNcocoioicM 
oim^fcoiomoiinoM-'rcoinin'-cjCM 

NCOOCOrOOin^rOlN'-ONCOTi-O 



tOCOCOeOOlr-OIOin'-NCMrNCMCOIOlllinTr 
OCOKT|OOCOSeOO)'-M , SlOIO'«SnN'-N 
t- CO CMIOOCOIMCMNONOCMNCOCO'-CMSM' 



cMcqifcoinciifinniocMCMCMincMconoiocMcoodin 
dM'cddsdcdcMOT-odscdidcjicdt-da'cMddiri 

S'-tfOconoiCMtMWNiD'-soiocooNioindn 

" ' CD CM *- ' CO ■>-CMCOCM'<iT'»l-OI»- ,, ''«-|»- 



■ t o I in . co i cm i o> . co 



i^-cOTj-r-~co-<rO*« 

,_ _, ^_» — _ ~^ (», Jv 

co «o 



co Ur O'CniinioiIco coco oi oi co co ^r r-~ co in o> 



COfCMlOfVCMOinCM 

ir-TTTrCMcommTr ^r cm 



o oi cm o !o o 1 o :0> co comcoooooooocoi^o 



r-- © col 
d co ri 



,!co!i 



co'coiin r— Icoicm: h- ■ co o> S'-oimnmcorcMCM tt *- ■*>• 
OJimi o> : co icoico oi o ■ co incii-ioncMoiiovmcMcoo 
T-isioiT-iTfin t- m i co cocMcocom<r-cocMOinmino 



Hh'h i — I — ■ 1 — (- h- 

zz;z!z;z!z z 2 

I — : i — > 1 — I — «• — !| — II— H 

COICOitO COCO'COiCO CO 



CO 

H h j 

COCO < 

- 1 - 1 CO 

< < 2 

o o q. 

Ill UJ CO 

Q.D. . 

CO CO 2 

I- I- UJ 

Z 2 2 



2 «a ■ 



- = = > > 

X X X X X 

H 0- t- Ij-'l- 

2 2 2 2 2 

< < < < < 

I- h- h- I- I- t- H 

CO CO CO CO CO to CO 



i X 

I- I- 

2 2 

< < 



> > 

X X 



2 

= ii! 
> 



X Q. 



2 ^ ^ 

ai Q- Q- 

5OOUJ 
a. 



2 2 
< < 



o o 



> > 



CO'COjCO COCO'CO CO CO 

C0;CO!C0:COiCOlC0 CO CO 

<!<:< <•<;<■< < 

— 1 ' — 1 ' 1 : t ^ 1 i 1 • 1 _i 

< < < < <!< : < < 

OiO'O'OloiOlO o 

LU UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ ■ ID UJ 

CL Q..Q. Q. Q_:0_ O. 0. 

co;co^co coico'co co co 



CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 

<<<<<<< 

I I I I I I ■ 

<<<<<<< 

00 00000 

UJ UJ UJ UJ til LU UJ 

a. a. a. a. a. a. 0. 

CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 



CO CO 

CO CO 

< < 

_l _l 

< < 

o o 

UJ UJ 

a. q. 

co co 



— Q 

2 
3 



> 

LU UJ UJ 

> > o 

UJ UJ ^ 
Q Q p 

>■ >■ 2 

fc-fca 



c 

■I 



< 

ex O 
CO o 



o o 
o o 
a. or 



IOt- CM CO • -«■ ■ in ' CD S CO O) O 1- CM CO ir 
co ' co i co cd co.cd co co co co r*- I s - h~ h- f^- 
CO'CO CO CO CO|cO CO COCO CO CO CO CO CO CO 



incoNONvmco 
r--r--f~t^r*-r'»r>-h- 

nonsssNs 

t-*— *-C3)0)0)0>0> 



'' 



Attachment 2 
Page 1 of 2 





» &5 "* 

■ in 
at 

CO 



M N. 

<° co 
in 5D 






*! co 

co in 

CO CM 



^ o 



O CD O -a- 



inicoioico[co:coiinioiT- 
•^•;Troia5|-<a-'r-!OiO'CD 
o_; coj ool a>j co i co i ojj cmj o_ 
co"! co"j cd i c\fi cn"i co"i co"i co"i cm" 

CMIt^-!h-;t-|COiCOICOiT-,i- 

iniO) t-ioiOiOiajicoico 



i^J*:CO COjh-iO 



i in i eo ■ oj i oo co w.r^-.-i-sm.'a-cocO'O o cni > c» . •<- i co ' co 

; OV O O t- CO O ' CD CO ; O • v- . CO mm in : CD ! CM , CD i CO ! CO 

coj co_ coj t-_ i- cdj r^= coj cd_ t-_. -<t | n-_ : m_ coj oj T-j cmj in i in 
'i co"! t--" r^-" in cn" co" »"• co"> co" co" o" ->-"' m" ■ co"> cm"; av in": cm": cm" 

! ■* , CM : CO < CD • CD in CM O ' CD m CM;r~inco:CM;-«- : >OiCO'CO 

:cd;cd in t n co co co cNiCM;c\rT-;T- : -«--T-!T--T-i j 



conn 

COlCD 

c»:oq 

I co"! in" 
>- 



•' m I t- 1 1*~ 
;cdIcO;t- 
•• co ! cm ! in 



OiO O5. ; C0iCO 

T-j r--J coj a>J cd_ 
dTi cd i col cm"! c" 
coioiiniT- co 
(OlOhtlO O 



t- i CO I CO I t- I Tf : CM : h~ 
COIOjOICDiCOi-r-^CO 

t-j in ! oil oj; oj in i in 
co"i cm"! co"i cm"! ■*■ o] ■* 



coi-^-iOicoiOco(~- 



co a> cd ->*■ cm in co . co co t- cm cm co cm ; cm : t- ; 



I I ! 



(DO) coo co f- h- 
co o t- n f (D co 
°°_ CO. ,- _ *** 1*1 •""; 

co cd" r--" in" co" t^~" co' 
o in co cd o co cm 

oi'N m Tf .tj- cm co 



co oo o O' cMio.T-'COi coiiniiniin -<-!oico 

CM in in in CDiCM COCO COiCD'CDiCD COICMIO 

o t-j co_ r~- in_ co_ oj t-j cmj inj in j co : co co cmiooico 
,, co"; co": cd" v" in" co~ cM."i of. in"; cm"' cm". 1 a>"; ufi in" i ini m'i in 
h- co m:M- r~-m co : cm"«-.o;cO:co! cd : r^ : r»- o ; n- o 

tJ- CM CM O) t-.t- rirjriri j m i CM 



cD'cn! 

IDiCD! 

r^ico: 

co i in; 

I I 



61 



Attachment 2 
Page 2 of 2 





£ | 

■a ro 
<u a 
■a aj 

5 Q 



UJ ro 

II 

ro 3 
3 05 




o"- O O O 

Rood 
■^ o o o 



o . •»- <*> 

S ° (D lO 






! 3 uoi col 



LOlfOHOOiCO'OiCD 



I o i t- : cm i ao i < 

I CT> ID ' f- : O I ( 
■ - — t- CM CO i ' 



!l- T-T- CM IfilTf T- 



IPSSJ 




! I 




i ! 



^SSJiiJS in : co 

till ! 



■ r a 



IT! ; O -r- 



micoi w o 

COrCOlCMCO 

T-mj'r-N'o) m ro 
cnT! cm"; oi *-1 co"! oo'i o' 



T-,CM,h- TT io 




:lHg-:> 



8!§ 

CO < 
I — tLU 

wo: 



> fc!§ £ 

£uj a: cc _, 

o z < .< < 

p tt a. £ h- 
(ujoiui cq o 
X H!Q -J H 
X h '"' 

o 



050.0 



62 



Attachment 3 
Page I ot 8 








fniooiNNNino 



rror— o>f— OM-mco 



m 


n 


(M 


: in 


' ^ 




(0 


(ii 




! O 


: (C 




to 


CO 


o 


| to 


■ tM 




*» 


in 


co 


' to 


en 




in 


(!) 




! to 


c 










CM 

1 







CMOlinNOli-NT- 

cococMoicocnor— 
■ in n_ s to_ iq m (o n 
co" of n w en t- in t-' t- co cri i 
to^oinNooioiNro; 



ID N O'CM CM CM'CM. i- CM 



T- T- r> i- 



t- CM t- CO^CM: ■* 




|9L 

S^cbecu 

1111 

fS§W§§ 



OJ 


ICJ) 


ir 


its 


K 


| to 






■o- 


:■*»• 


in 


I ^ 



i cm ciir-.co s ^ t- m n n w 

icM;co!m:co-<a-:csio.CM r- cm 

: o_: co [ coj f-J en i co ^f_ i-_ in in 

; to'i o)"; c>" cm'- co" en t- o* co" o" 

■ oioim: CO to: r- t»- O) to *-•*- 

'• CM ! ^- 1 i CO • 'COCO CO CM t- 



m 


CO 


cn| 


in 


,-J 


ED 


m 


■q- 


o 


EC 


CO 


aj 


o 


to 


CM 


TT 


in 


CO 


1 to 


■ IT 


U) 


a> 




to 


c; 








. CM 





tj-cm -i- © t- in • m t- ■<»• cm 



'■■W- T" T- ■ co 



in i to co. coi 



co ; co ! a> . <j) . 




otooi.oo in r- 
co -<r t-| m o cm co 

CM CD ; t-J ttl lO_ T-_ f-_ 
lO T-j co"i co"i I--" O* T-*. 
CO'CMitD! O <t O) O). 

i- 1 m 1 1- ; co i cm t- 



I CO CO ' CO '. «* ' CO i- CM Hi 



=: = :£..> > > > 

X>XjXJX X XX X 

r-'h ; r- t- H r- I- r- 

Z!ZlZ Z Z 2 2 Z 

<;<(< < < < < < 

H'l- : l- r- r- r- H r- 

COCO: CO CO CO CO CO CO 



CO ! CO I CO CO ] CO . CO CO 
C0IC0IC0 C0G0ICO CO 



OOiOiOOO'O 
LL1 ' 111 LL) I lu lu aiiai 
a. : 0_ i Ql ! a. ' a i Q. i 0. 
CO CO 'CO 'CO co co -co 



tOir~lcOIO).0 *-; CM 

to i to' to: to i r— sis 
cO'CO : co!co;coco»co 



I ! H 

co : co i co ■ co . co : co 

111 : lil ! LU : 111 ; ULJ LU 
OJOjO O'OO 

>i> > >i>j> 

K a E-K ex 



COICOiCO CO CO en CO 

zzz z :z z 



< < < < 



< _ 

o o o o o 

LU LU LU LU LU 

O. Q. O..Q. Q. 

CO CO CO CO CO 



< < < 

1- r- 1- 

CO CO CO 

CO CO CO 

.v> in en 

< < < 
_j _j _j 

< < < 



< < 

1- r- 

00 CO 

CO CO 

CO CO 

< < 



CO CO 
CO CO 

< < 



: x x,x.x;xjx 

,1-1-1- r— ;l— ! h- J- I 

zzz z z:z z 

<<'<:<;<•'< <- 

I- H'r- l-'r-!r-'r-' 
COCOCO COICOiCO CO 

co co co en cn.cn en 
en en en co coico co 



< < < < < <'< <'<■< < 

O O O O O-OO OOlOO 
LU UJ LU LULU LU LU LU i LU | LU LU 



CO T m to r-- 
S r- S- r- r- 
CO CO CO CO CO 



2:522 

a oia a 
< <:< < 



5 5 

a a 
< < 



en en 

LU UJ 

o o 

> > 

ex a: 

UJ LU 

co co 

LU LU 

> > 

< < 

or a: 

H r- 

CO CO 

z z 

5 5 

D Q 

< < 



CO CO 

LU LU 

O O 

> > 

cc a. 

LU LU 

CO CO 

LU LU 

> > 



5 2 

a o 
< < 



co in r- 

-io s s 



en en en 

LU UJ LU 

y oy 

> > > 

o: K K 

LU UJ LU 

en en en 

O O O 
ZZZ 

o o o 



0. Q. 


a 


CL 


Q. 


Q. 


a. 


DL 


Q. 


D 


CL: 


o 


a. 


0. 


en en 


en 


CO 


w 


GO 


en 


C/3 


ers 


CO 


CO 


!w 


en 


00 


m co 


O) 


o 


^. 


CM 


CO 


■<t 


m 


(f) 


^. 




,oi 




to to 


UJ 


r~ 


s- 


f~ 


1^ 




s- 


l-~ 


N-l 


r- 


s 




CO CO 


C) 


CO 


co 


CO 


C) 


C) 


CO 


CO 


CO 


co 


COi 


CO 


-■" -^ 


T_ 


"" 


,_ 


T " 


,_ 


' r ~ 


*" 


T ~ 


,_ 






■>-. 



! i i 



5 5 5 2 2 2 2222255SS 

Q-D.Q QQ:Q Q Q Q Q Q Q O Q Q 
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 



3 3 3 




5 13 


a a a 


ra 


Q 2 


< < < 


o 

r- 


<z 


LU LU LU 


ai 


5 5 


O O O 


O 


CD O 


< < < 


< 


< < 



ZZZ 


z z z.z 


z z!z z 






: 




LU 


o o o 


o o-o o 


OO'O o 










D 


en en en 


CO CO coco 


en en en en 










o 
u 

UJ 


en en en 


CO CO coco 


en en < en en 




z 


z 




5 5 5 


5 5 5 5 


2 5 2 2 




q 


o 




5 5 5 


5 5 2 2 


2 2 2 2 




en 


CO 




DC 


o o o 


o o o-o 


O OiO o 




en 


CO 




~- 


o o o 


O O O'O 


O O'O o 




5 


5 




K 


1- r- r- 


1- H H r- 


1 — 1 — " 1 — t- 




■? 


? 




o 


K K K 


ara: ct ce 


IX CX'OL CX. 




n 






CO 


o o o 


O O O O 


O OO o 




n 


fl 




lil 


Q. 0. Q. 


0. a_ cl'.o. 


Q..Q. a. a. 










Ct Ct CC 


a: cc cc ce 


tx CX cc cc 


_ 


rr 


IT 




(fl 


< < < 


< < < < 


< <•< < 


o 

t- 


< 


< 


a 
l- 


< 






; • 


; 


rr cr q: 


QiCt Ct K 


tx.cxtx CX 


tx 


H 


K 




tr 


< < < 


< < < < 


< <;< < 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 



63 



Attachment 3 
i'age 2 of 8 





! in T-i-s-tor^toomom 
'■-flini-oiouionic 
| in CO rj en •" w- <D «- cc 
o>" h-" eo" co" to" cm" » n oi it 



t- in to 



»- ID -li r- 



s 


in 


,_ 


OB 


r- 


co 


o 




a 


■ 


m 


CO 


^ 


o 












1 m 


~ 


CO 


0) 




(.-> 


m 


^ 


^ 


'- 


m 


m 


a 


s 


r. 


a 


■ 














o 


O) 


a 


ID 


to 


■ 


i j 


: 4 


■ 


K 


09 


CN 


*- 


a 


B 


r-. 


•» 


-r 


a 


11 N 


co 


CC 


co 


co 


■V 


C) 




o 


m 


o 


V 


n 


•--. 


•^ 


CC 




■ 








ril<n 




rj 


co 


a 


a 


-; 


a 


=0 


e 


m 


co 


co 


r- 


=0 


co 


m 






























i- 


















N 




II* 


~ 




CM CM;*-, O *- t-;t- »-,cm »H,r» 



cm co in ^ >H n T-^N'-T-nco'-N ^ •• n n n 






«- CM CM CO CM:i- 



«D CM, 




t_j tu aj CO liJ 
VllDIr- (O CC 



CM T- O «-| »- T- CM 



i 



oi r- ml cm 

»- en td id 
to »- oa o 



o co o to ro 



o it o «*• 






n 

K 
CM 


■ 


cc 
OP 


c 


at 

(0 

to 


<o 

co 


CM 

c. 

■ 




o 
n 


C 
co 


n 

a 


in 


a, 


m 



«- CM »-| :«- 






1 -. 



' H« f- ^ CM ■- N O CM 



i»- cm « tn cm r- cm^co r> o 




, 



•■- *- CM CM' 



- -n °> 



! I 




= =;^,>:> > £ X X X 



Hfclt- 


h- 


1- 


h- 


H 


i- t- 


K 


t- 


h- 1- 


ZiZZ 


7. 


^ 


.' 


Z 


z z 


Z 


z 


z z 


< 1 < • < 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< < 


< 


< 


< < 


r- r- ■(- 


1- 


h 


i- 


h 


t- i- 


h- 


1- 


1- 1- 


CO COCO 


C/i 


cc 


05 


ca 


co co 


CO 


co 


CO CO 


in in tn 


CO 


M 


a: 


CI 


CO CO 


CO 


CO 


CO CO 


in win 


t/J 


on 


0? 


n 


CO CO 


CO 


CO 


CO CO 


< < < 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< < 


< 


< 


< < 


i i i 


1 


. I 


i 


. j 


_l _l 


_l 




_l _1 


< < < 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< < 


< 


< 


< < 


0:0 O 


O 


O 


CJ 


u 


o o 


o 


o 


o o 



D.a.0-.tXCL.Q.Q.iQ.'Q. 0. 

co tnintnm in mm co co 



X X X X 



zzzzzzzz 
<<<<<<<< 

►— I— t— t— I— »— t— »— 

cocococococococo 

cocococococococo 
cocococococococo 
<<<<<<<< 
I I ■ I ■ ( I I 

<<<<<<<< 

oooooooo 

LUULUlULUUJLUUJ 
0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0. 
COCOCOCOCOCOCOCO 



= = ^>>>*xxxx 

i — I— I— t— 1— I— 1 — t—t—v-t— 

zzzzzzzz zz z 
< < < < < < < < < < < 
I— I— t— t— I— t— f— I — I — 1 1— »-• 



> 



_ _ _ ' J ' w * ■ J t~\ t 



m mm in m coico co> 

CO CO CO CO 

eo co co co 
< <, 



CO CO CO 

CO CO CO 

< 



< < < < < < < < < < 

OOOO'O'OOCUU 
UJ UJ UJ 111 LU UJUJ UJ IXIIUJ 
0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 

CO CO cocococococococo 



5So: 



r- .CM'COlTfICO r«-i COI o *- 
. tO ' CO : CD : CO CD CD CO h- h. 
CO COCOiCO CO CO CO CO CO 




■CO CO CO COICO CO CO 

'ccr^Korio: a. rr 

O O OOiO O O' 

CO CO CO CO i CO CO CO 

> > > > > > > 

.o::o: o::Qiiot: a. a. 

UJ UJ LLI ' LU ' UJ UJ UJ 

0.0. O-'Q-'Q. 0. 0. 

Z) D 3. 3 3 3 Z> 

CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 

:u- u. u.'U.'u. u. u. 



Qcrr o: rr:E cc cr 



i- N N O OI O » 
(O (O (D (D 12 N r. 
CO CO ' CO CO CO CO CO 



<<<<<<<< 

U.U.U.U.U.11.11.U. 
ZZZZZZZZ 

oooooooo 



>- n n in id s aj o o>- co 01 
CO co to coco to CO D S N s si 
co co co co • co co co co co:co co r*. 



I- t- I- 



I- »- K I— 



Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 
LULULLIIUUIUJDJLU 
>>>>>>>> 
ZZZZZZZZ 

oooooooo 
oooooooo 

cocococococococo 
oooooooo 
>>>>>>>> 

cocococococococo 

zzzzzzzz 
52555222 
oooooooo 
<<<<<<<< 



■ ; : 



CO CO. CO 

O O'O 

m co CD 



CO CO CO 

O O O 

co en m 



CO CO CO CO CO 

O'O O O O 

CD ' CO CD CO CO 



o o o 

u. u. u. 

o o o 



5 5 5 5 

U.U.U.U.U.U.U.U. 

OOOOOOOO 



5 5 5 u. 



< < 


< 


< < < < <'<!< 


< < 








u. u. 


u. 


_ _ _____ 


U. U.I 








tr rr 


X 


Lt K K K C tt E 


cr cr! 




• i 




UJ UJ 


LU 


UJ UJ UJ UJ UMJJIUJ 


m uj; 








- - 




X X X X x.x.x 


X X 








1- 1- 


— 


HI- 1 — I — 1 — hih 


K r- 








00 oS 


4 


ofl o3 qC *b ofl ofl or3 


oj oj 








X X 


X 


X X X X X X X 


T T 








1- 1- 


1— 


1- r- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 


i- y- 








X X 


_ 


X X X X X X X 


X X, 




i 




O O 


a 


o o o o o oo 


o o. 




rr 




>- >- 


> 


>- >- >- >->->>■ 


^.^ 




UJ 




z* z" 


z 


z z z z z z z 


z z 




-i 




UJ UJ 


UJ 


UJUJllI UJ UJ 111 UJ 


UJ UJ 




o 




or or: 


K 


cr.or; cc rr cr cr o: 


rr rr 




rr 




o o 


a 


n o o a o o o 


X X 




H 




_j _i 




— i — i i > i i i 


_i _i 




Z 




X X 


— 


X X X X X X X 


X X 




o 




o o 


u 


o o o o o o o 


o o 




o 












H 






u. u. 


u. 


U- u. u. u. u_ u_ u. 


u. u. 


U- 


z 




X X 


r 


r x x x x x x 


X X 


— 







o o 


U 


o o o o o o o 


o o 


o 


o 





64 



Attachment 3 
Page 3 ot 8 




5°2'.2:_2 CO' 

___ 3 CO i CO I CO CO' 
g»J CO I CO i CO CO 

- "S?j< : < < < 



■jSpw^J <'<■<:<■< 

M>y^VTTrnp — i — • — 

'-S __^ 3£ift UJ I UJ i UJ I ID I UJ 



COiCO 

coico 

COICO 

<:< 
_l 

< 



iCO'CO 
>CO!CO 

;< < 

CJIO 



L-L. ' U_ . (JL. I—- 'LLIU. U_ _J-_ 

CO ■ CO I CO CO ' CO ' CO :COlC0 



CO CO CO CO 

CO 00 CO CO 

CO CO CO CO 

< < < < 

1 1 I 1 

< < < < 
o o o o 

111 UJ UJ UJ 

0- Q. 0l Q. 

CO CO CO CO. 



r — r — I — I — I I — I — I I — \ I — - 1 — 

CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO'CO 

CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 

CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 

< < < < <,< < < <,<■< 

i i i i ■ ■ i _i _i i : I : I 

<<<<<<<< <)<•< 

O O O O O'O CJ o o-o o 

UJ UJ UJ UJ UJIUJ UJ'UJ UJ:UJ:UJ 

cl q. cl Q. Q. a. o. a. o.iQ..o_ 

CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 



'co;co 
;Co:co 



COiCO'COCO CO 
CO CO^CO-CO CO 
CO CO CO CO CO 

< <<.<:< 



iO:0 O 



<:<■.<:< 
o i o i o : o 

UllUliUI Ui 

Q-IQ-'O. a. 

coicoco'co 



-iv -'£ji»-:-0i<-vo'cni 

j g-?lR- mi CO ' CD i CO . r- ; r- ' 

— - m m co m mi 



I CO: if) 
coir~ 
mm 





0-0. a. a_ 

^.i UJ'UJ I ID UJ 

|£§g_ii_i'_i _i 

HE* I L I : I _i 

— o_'o_ 

l-Sr-'r- 



CO CO 
CO CO 

o o 



CO — 

5 o 

I- 

a o 



r~ cn <* o 
o s s s 
m m m m 



CO CO CO CO 



3 3 

m m 

LL. IL 

o o 

r- H 

z z 

UJ UJ 

2 2 

h- t- 

o. q_ 

< < 

0- 0- 

LU UJ 

D D 



n s o o T-CNim tj- urjicof- 
co co co r— r— f-r— t-~ r-.f-'N- 
m m m m m t m ■ m m co co 1 co 



-z.-z.-z. 

o o o 



v. sr«r<c 
z z z z 



Z 2 z z 

: 0-0'0 



h- h hi- i— ;i— It— II— 
< < < < < <•■<•< 

h- r- \- \- r- I- t-r- 



< < < 

r- I- r- 

K K E 

o o o 



a: 
o o 



o. o. a. a. o. ' a. a. 
co co co co co co co 
z z z z z z z 



s: 


DC 


cr 


E 








o 


O 


a. 


CL 


0. 


D 


ca 


01 


CO 


CO 


^ 


Z 


Z 


Z 


< 


< 


< 


< 


K 


o_ 


tr 


oe 



z z 

UJ UJ 

2 5 



'. 0:10 CO OiT-ilMIC! 

ico:co co r^:r--:i^.r~ 

'CJ'ODiOirt-MIP) 



fcc'tj; trjKitr: o_ c: 

'0:0 OiO'OdO 

$ § § ??5 5 

io;o o oo lo o 

j ■ ■ i i : i i i 

n i co Bfl»flQ*CD«co 

=> D ID-DO -D-D 

a. a a. 0-:o_.a. c 

l_.:ll_ ll. li_.u.u.u. 

iO:0 O O OO O 

i I — I — (— , I— ; (— I— t— 



h- r- I- HH r- r- r- H | H : r- 




z z z z z z z 


_J_I_I_J_I_J-J_I _i:_l _| 




LU UJ UJ ' UJ ' UJ UJ'UJ 


<<<<<<<< << < 




2 2 2 2 2 2 2 


0.0.0.0.0-0.0.0. O-.Q-'O. 




;t-ii- k!i-!H!Hii- 


O O O O O-O O O O O CJ 




,0-0- 0- a-iQ-'O-Q. 


zzzzzzzz z z z 




< < <■<:< < < 


a3-33-DD-DD3D3 


75 


ILULUUJUJLLILIJLLI 


2 _>->-> 2 2 2 _> 2 2 2 





IQ'Q Q O'QO O 


l-r-Hr-l-r-l-h- 1- r- r- 


H 


5 5 $ $ $ 5 $ 


0.0.0.0.0-0-0.0.0-'. 0.0. 


C 


!a:o. a. 0.0. o. o. 


QQOQQOQO Q'Q Q 


O 


;q q q o q a o 



65 




Z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


?: 


z 




3 


"7 


3 


3 


3 


3 




3 


3 


3 


S 


3 


3 




31 


3 


: ; 


3 


3 


3 







a 


D 


o 


a 







u 


CJ 


u 


o 


u 


u 




> 


> 


> 


V 


>- 


V 




u 


o 


U 


c: 


u 


U 




z 


2 


z 


Z 


z 


.-. 




UJ 


LU 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 







o 


C3 


O 


O 


a 




K 


~ 


X 


21 


K 


si 




UJ 


UJ 


LU 


v.: 


UJ 


u 




S 


s 


S 


:> 


3 


3 


ra 


HI 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 
















H 


a 


a 


a 


o 


a 


a 


B 


U 


u 


u 


U 


u 


u 


U 


III 


UJ 


UJ 


LU 


ui 


UJ 


III 



— 


> 


> 


«- 


— 


•- 


T- 


— 


•- 


— 


•- 


— 




^ 


— 


.- 




^ 


— 


«- 




-> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


> 


















UI 


UJ 


UJ 


..: 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UI 


u. 


UI 


111 
















Is 


o 


a 


Q 


CJ 


a 


a 


LU 


a 


a 


a 


LU 


LU 












1 ' 






u 


a 


U 


U 


u 


U 


u 


c 


c 


l: 


U 


U 


















3 


3 


3 


r- 


3 


^ 


r? 


3 


3 


3 


r 


3 





















O 


□ 


o 








a 


o 





C 





o 


















z 


-i 


^ 


z 


7 


z 


z. 


7 


-z 


7 


:: 


z 












7- 


T 


7 


a 


a 


a 





o 


:_' 











:: 





a 












n 


D 


r 


u 


<j 


o 


u 


u 


u 


u 


U 


;; 


u 


u 


u 








> 




CO 

1 






UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


jj 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


LU 


UJ 
















□ 


c 


Q 


a 


Q 


□ 


~ 


3 


~ 


a 


r. 


a 




H»H 


t- 




— 


1 1 


7 


Z 


Z 


.- 


-■• 


z 


^ 


Z 


Z 


z 


z 


r 




7- 


?. 


z 






< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


•i 


< 


< 


< 


< 




LU 


UJ 


UJ 




5 is 2 


:.- 


CO 


en 


N 


on 


■ 


co 


Efl 


CO 


CO 


DO 


CO 




3 


^ 


i 




oo c 




ta 


co 


co 


00 


CO 


oa 


00 


n 


CO 


CO 


co 


CO 




7 


Z 


^ 




! 






UJ 


Ill 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


LU 


i. j 







n 


O 




■ 


C/5 


er 




7 


^ 


-i 


Z 


7 


^ 


^ 


-: 


.- 


^ 


~ 


^ 




:r 


:r 


LT 




(J 


U 


c 




gg 


on 


co 


DQ 


CO 


00 


L0 


CO 


CO 


co 


co 


co 




> 


> 


> 




— 


- 


- 




.: 


-j 


3 


7 


Z) 


3 


3 


_J 


3 


: 


3 


"D 


■ 


Z 


z 


z 




f- 


h- 


h 




- 


c: 


IB 


a 


DO 


DC 


cc 


cs 


ct: 


ct; 


= 


O 


c 
1- 


UJ 


UJ 


LU 


c 
1- 


UJ 


UJ 


_U 






























:z 


z 


:z 


~ 


Z 


Z 


z 


r: 


= 


Z 


7 


z 


r 


> 


> 


> 


> 


— 


_ 


T 




u 


U 


U 


u 


o 


u 


U 


U 


U 


CJ 


o 


U 


U 


Z 


7 


7" 


Z 


II— 


H 


1- 




UI 


UJ 


LU 


UJ 


UJ 


111 


UI 


LU 


UJ 


UJ 


UI 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


•UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


-J 






6 































Attachment 3 
Page 5 of 8 







r-r- — i 






<D I- 




m a 


;■* i 


o c: 


In 


(D '"T 




in cv 


\a 


03 CN 




i- in 


\*t 


in o 


i to ' 


in cr 




t- cc 


: in I 




1 




! N i 

! i 



«* cn r-_ cn 

r»* in in" c 

CO CO O CC 



ffi s in n oi p; 
(O in io n « 
CD co co in CM CO 



O) r^ in n 


T 


c 


O 


CD 


cn 


in t- cn 


.00 i 


co in cd cr 


CN 


c 


CO 


!£ 


1 CO 


CD co ■«■ 


ID 


co co co in 


: r- 


N 


r- 


CO 


to 


CO CN O 




•a- cn in cn 


: IN 




-t- 


T3- 


t 


in in co 


i"* i 


in in r- oc 


r- 


IC 


in 


u 


■ in 




■a> i 




CN 
























i 




( 




jCM '«- ■* CM 



t- t- t- t- «ct 



a\ co_ in co_ 

o" Cn" N." S O 111 K 

CO n CN ^ N O) r- 

CN «- CN CN CN 



'"tiCNin.-O.FJ r-i 





! . ! 



o) n m n cn c; 

cd in co co 

CO cO_ 

■a- cn m cn" 

m in s co to a 



in cn cc 



co;a>iin-o'«*-!co;cN 
CNicoicnioih-toii^ 
; 05_: to j in i co_: co i co ' 
o"' o" r»* iO o"i iri I r. 
Ico:c*j|cm:t* i-.ia>i-<- 
icNi'r-.oj (m,cm: |t- 



i- t- t- f CM 



■"J-CMjCOiCO C0"t-|t- 



,_ 


v- 


m 


(71 


r- 


m 


CN 


^r 


■■* 


CN 


N- 


CN 


S 


in 


Ifl 


n 


aj 


CO 


C3 


aa 






M 





oi s in rt 


«*• 


o 


o 


"^ 


co in co n 


cm 


f 


o 


CD 


co co co in 


r- 


r- 


r- 


(0 


■a- ov in c\ 


CN 






U 


in m n. cc 


r- 


U 


m 


u: 


' ' 


«N 









; cm I t- s -q- : cn a> 



g&SBrv 



e^Q^ 



T- T- T" ■>*• 



CN CN <r- t- 1- t-t- 




Z! 

si < < i 

-B — — i 




i co co 

i CO i CO 



■ I- I- h- r- 

Z'Z-Z.Z 

:<<;<■<. 

; t- i r- : H H 
jCOCO'COCO 

; co co I co co 

:C0 CO'CO CO 

:<;<;< < 

■<:<:< < 

iojoio o 

LU LU LU LU 

io_ o_.o. a. 
co CO'CO co 



= > > 

i X X X X 



co co co co co co 

CO CO CO CO CO CO 
CO CO CO CO CO CO 

<<<<<< 

) I 1 I I I 

<<<<<< 



: a. a. a. a. a. a. 

CO CO CO CO CO CO 



x:x;x 



x x;x;x 



z z z z 

< < < < 

1- h-'H 1- 

C0 CO CO CO 

CO CO CO CO 

CO CO CO CO 

< < < < 

I I t 1 

< < < < 

o o o o 

LU LU 111 IU 

a. a. a. a. 

C0 CO CO CO 



l-il-il-.r-H^Hlr- 
ZiZJZiZ Z;Z,Z 

<;< = <<<'<;< 



co co co 

CO CO, CO 

< < < 

I I I 

< < < 

o o o 

LU LU LU 



CO'COICO 
COICO'CO 

I ; I ■ I . 

<;<:<■ 
oioio 

LU LLl LU 

:Q.I0_ l a.; 

co i co . co 



CO COJCOICO 

co coicolco 

CO CO'COICO 

<<•<:< 

_J I : I : I 

< < < < 

O OlOiO 
LUiLUlLUiUJ 
O-Q-IO-lQ- 
CO CO I CO: CO 






; co :o ,cm ■<»■• 
• CO ; h- I r~ ' r- 
! CO ' CO ! CO CO • 




2 2. 



CO 


in 


CO 


CO 


LU 


LU 


LU 


UJ 


(J 


U 


o 


o 


> 


> 


> 


> 


a 


rr 


K 


(T 


LU 


LU 


UJ 


HI 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


T 


T 


T 


T 


H 


1- 


K 


1- 


. J 


j 


_J 


_l 


< 


< 


< 


< 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 



GO 


rn 


CM 


CO 


T* 


in 


<0 


cn 


h« 


r- 


1*. 


t-- 


CO 


r> 


C5 


c> 


CI 


n 












K 


IT. 


K 


a 


or. 


cr 


O 


o 





o 


o 





§ 5 § 5 5 § 


H 


h- 


i- 


r- 


\- 


H 


111 


III 


iii 


111 


LU 


111 


Z 


z 


z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


T 


T 


T 


z 


I 


T 


h- 


h- 


r- 


1- 


H 


h- 


_l 


l 


_l 


1 


i 


i 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 


LU 



CO CD CN CO 

co io s s 

CO CO CO CO 

CO CO CO'CO " 

O O O 

1 X X X 



^oit-icN'coM-'inir- 

r— 'r-lr--r--:r--lr-ih- 
coicoicococo', rtfco 



.'X.I.I I 



:=i -x 2 ' 2 

r:f?.^=;co co 
"ra&a£I'Ii_ 

fflE2ir- r- co 

r-l.-Q'LU'LU, — 



•<• tz tt b 

0- :Z Z Z Z 

; lu' :do r) =3 

Q 2 2 2 2 

lu .2 2'2 2 

ik:_ o o o o 

ll. ra O U'Q U 



I I X I I I 

hhhhhh 

z z z z z z 



< < 

CC K 

lu ai 

z z 

LU LU 

CO o 

o o 

o o 

CO CO 

CJ o 

z z 



2 
2 2 2 

o o o 
o o o 



'ri-cO-'X XX 
j---cd:1- h- h- 

PdJ lu lu lu 



r- 

.1 i:i i x 
o o o o o 

;I II I X 


z z z z z z z 

CJ o o o o o 

1 I I I I X X 



< < 

cc ce 

LU LU 

z z 

LU LU 

o o 

o o 

U o 

co co 

o o 

z z 

< < 

o: x 

U- U. 

Z Z 

< < 

CO CO 



X X I X X 

O CD C3 O CD XX 



< < < 

LU LULU 
III 



LU LU LU 

2 2 2 

>■ >'>'. 
t tt' 

z z:z 

2 2 2 
2 2 2 _ 

o o*o ™ 

O'O o 
1 h- 

1 I I X 



I ! 



< < < < <•<:<. 
LU' LULU LU LU.LUiUJ 

x:x;ii i,i:i 
oloo O OiOO 
— I ' I " I . I _l._l_l 

CO I CD . CO CO CO I CO : CO _ 
DO.D -D DD.3 co 
O-.'O- 0. X 0.'. 0-0- o 

~ i i : ; t- 
i:i i I i'i:i x 



2 2 5 0.10. O. CL O-'O. o. a. 1 



IXIXX XX IX IIIX XXX I II i x 



67 



Attachment 3 
Page 6 of 8 




•■--• c 

-rCJ 



■- x 
if ~ 

■s 



to 


to 


LO 


CO 


CO 


CO CO 


CO 


HI 


111 


111 


HI 


HI 


HI UJ 


UJ 


O 


U 


U 


C5 


U 


0:0 


o 


DC 


DC 


DC 


X 


X 


KiCC 


tr 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3;3 


3 











O 





OiO 


O 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


co 


coco 


CO 


LI 


III 


UJ 


IIJ 


m 


UJ LU 


UJ 


cr 


DC 


DC 


X 


K 


CEICE 


ce 


z 


Z 


r 


7 


Z 


z!z 


2 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


<:< 


< 


2 


^ 


> 


:> 


a 


? > 


? 


3 


3 


j 


3 


^ 


3 3 


3 ra 


X 


X 


X 


X 


3 


x:x 


X O 



■ ■ "5. O O OQQOD 
.jriiSpoT CE Q£ . C t£ 0£ K E . 

■ . O X X XIXXX. 



X 


X 


X 


DC 


<r 


r 


DC 


DC 




< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 




X 


r 


rr. 


DC 


X 


X 


DC 


DC 




a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 




_ 


_j 


_i 


_i 


_j 


_j 


_l 


_i 




u 


c 


U 


U 


U 


U 


U 


U 




1 


j 




_j 


! 


I 


I 






en 


m 


EO 


a 


CO 


a 


a 


a 




.: 


3 


: 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


M 


Q. 


a. 


Dl 


a. 


0. 


Ol 


s. 


Q. 


c 


a 


ta 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 


a 



252225SS5 



Attachment 3 
Page / ot 8 



y~ re.r re 


















T 


m 


u 


CO 


in 


** 


r-. 




T 


*r 


(0 


0! 


CO 


o 


r" 


; co 


t 


r; 


en 


r-- 


in 


: <o 


: «- 


N 


■<t 


o 


a 


i »- 


■a- 


0! 




IN 


e\ 


' o 


I 










i CO 


j 






N r IO r'fl 

O) CD 

i- "fr CD CN 



co o cm in cm 

* n n co 



T- m CD CM CM 



^_' 


01 


m 


id 


ro 




in 


IN 


CN 


CO 


in 


«- 


IT) 


rn 


l»» 


CO 


It) 


in 


CN 


Ol 






CN 





T- T- T- T" T" COlT- P) T- T- l- 



i-_ CM_ CO 

o" in" oi" in in 

a: en :^t co id co s c 



co co co co 

"9. is- o_ co 

co" t-" in n." 

■ co in co co 

CM t- f- CM 



I 



miCMCMicoi 




r~ '-tic: 



■oil en 

; CM iCM 



CO :i- ! *- 



m 


,-J 


a 


10 


CO 


CN 


CM 


m 


r» 


c 







ID 


LO 


en 


1 




en 


IN 


■ 


CO 


U) 




! 


O) 


r- 


en 




ID 


<N 
CN 


O) 


i 



r*- m in •«- 

co co O) co 

N ■ 00 CO_ CM 

rf m* tt m* 

t- SO) O: 



co t- i en i m I t- 
co : CO ! t- i CD i co 

i- _ CN ' ID i 0C_ 

o'iin" oi'linjin 
co ■ co ■ co I r-~ I c I co 



^rfSIO) 



CM CM t- lO 



t- r- CO 



r- -r- CO 



■• -.— "S5S co ! co I m( . cm 
7ffficogc« O) I CM j 



llHi 



CO CD T- 



•»- m co 



,- 


CM 


CO 


. in 




CO 


t 


o 


•cm 




CM 


<-) 


CO 






in 


ro 


CO 


IO 




C ) 






a 








CM 







o;n.O'io| 



CM I t- ■ t- j CM 



*~ *- i *-,••-. CI 



miCM ICM' CO 



! I 



i 



m£3*-!»|«i 
i 
i 



T" CM !i- T- 



! , 




X X X X 

H H r- I- 

Z Z Z Z 

< < < < 
H H H h- 
W CO CO CO 
CO CO CO CO 
CO CO CO CO 

< < < < 
I I I — I 

< < < < 

o o o o 

ui ai hi ui 

0. 0. a. 0. 

co co co co 



.r- h r-r-jr-r- 
iz z z z!z z 

: <l< < <:<■< 

r-ir-it-il-il-i !r- 

C0;C0WC0;WiW 
ico'cO CO COCOicO 
:C0W c/5 c/3 I CO CO 

•<.<:<.<!<:< 

■ I " I - I . I : I i I - 

< < <'<■<'< 

oio'O oicjio 

UJ UJ lu uj UJ LU 
Q.'Q.:£L,Q. : .Q.,Q. 
CO CO CO CO I CO i CO 



,1-1- r- l-| 
C0;C0.CO>COJ 
IcoicO CO CO! 

• co ; co co i co i 

<<;<•<,<■ 

'_l!_l 1 1 1 1 

< < < <! 

OiO O'OI 

. LU UJ LU LU 

I a. a. a.: Q-i 

IC0:C0 CO COi 



CM m CD t~- 
h. s- r- l»- 

CO CO CO CO 



z z z z 

o o o o 



2 2 2 2 
2 2 2 2 



i«*l CD O -^ICN'CD 
i CO'CDif— S'f- N- 
iCOlCOCO'CO', COICO 1 



s- cm co i io; 



1L 


LL 


IX. 


a. 


Ll_ 


LL. 


Li. 


o 


n 


n 


n 


LL. 


LL 


LL 


LL 


a. 


u. 


U. 


o 


U 


o 




< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 




ir 


rr 


rr 


rr 


rr 


rr 


K 


CO 


to 


CO 


C/J 


h- 


H 


H 


1- 


i- 


1- 


H 


UJ 


LU 


UJ 


UJ 


□ 


Q 


□ 


Q 


Q 


a 


Q 


H 


H 


V- 


(- 


2 


z 


Z 


Z 


Z 


^ 


Z 


-J 


_j 


_l 


_J 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


H 


H 


H 


V- 


o 


CO 


co 


co 


(9 


(S 


o 


3 


3 


U 


-J 


2 


2 


7Z 


2 


2 


2 


z 


O 


O 


u 


CJ 



2 2 5 
2 2 2 

o o o 
o.o o 
I a \ sc • m 

;a. a: a. 
< 



22 2 
2 2 2 

o o o 

OlOO 

*: ^ m 

< ■<■ 



,a. a. a. a.;o_ a. 
a a a q.q:q 



< < < < < < 

z z z z:z:z 



r- L- r- ir; T 



OCJOCJOOOO 
I — I — I— h— I — I — I— I— 

Q.Q.CLCLQ-Q.Q.O- 



Q. 0. 0. OL 



o. a. a. q. a. a. a. 



o 


O O 


O 


O 


O 




ico 


ca 


CO 


co 


h- 


K- H 


H 


t- 


1- 




z 


z 


2 


Z! 


< 


< < 


<r 


< 


< 










CJ 


O! 


LU 


LU LU 


UJ 


LU 


LU 










H 


cr 


cc cc 


K 


rr 


rr 




n 


n 


n 


C) 


U 


oo 


CJ 


U 


CJ 




in 


in 


hi 


UJ 


LU 


LU LU 


Ui 


Ui 


ui 


■ 


i_i 


i 


i 


J 


Ol 


tr a: 


cr 


rr 


cr 


o 


LU 


LU 


UJ 


UJ 














CJ 


o o 


C5 


C) 


CJ 


C) 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


HI 


LU LU 


ui 


UI 


in 


ui 


111 


III 


111 


III 


c 


cc tr 


rr 


cr 


cr 


cr 


rr 


rr 


rr 


cr: 



69 



Attachment 3 
Page 8 ot 8 













Jx 




1* 
















* 






.' 








* 






o 


o 










■» 




00 




p 






d 


d 










d 




r-^ 




d 


i?V*-cr3;(a 




o 


o 










CO 




o 




a 


sjggpgfiq; 




















en 






jjfjsS%c^ 


re 






CO 














re 




c 


S? 


J? 


c 








* 




^ 


c 






-? 




o 


9 










■J" 




o 




o 






d 


d 










d 




d 




d 






o 


o 














o 




o 






V 


T 














o 




T 




re 






re 














re 






c 






c 














c 


































1- cnI 


n 


co 


en 


in 


! in 


1 n. co 


c 


a 


CO n. 


m i co 


»■ irt co 


O Ol o 


Ol H N 


r3 co 

CNJ CN 


r~ •« 


o 




CD rf 
CN C 


a 

10 


1 to 

: IT. 


1 •"> 

1 in 


ca 


i <*> 


in ct 
CO cc 


in 


.; 


CO CN 

r> in 


CO o> 

CO CO_ 


•o cc 

CN C 


CO 


CN »- CO 

in eo_ co 


TT id CN 
CN CNJ r»_ 


CO I-. 

w r. 


in 




igljgg 


in" co 


Ol" 


N 


|W 


rs 


CN 


en" in 


• in 


to 


en ri 


in" m" 


in cc 


o" 


r-* en" d 


o" mi co 


ifj' in 


d o 


d 


o «- 


00 


BC 


1 CO 


£ 


in 


m co 


in 




o p. 


p- en 


o c\ 


CN 


m co f- 


co a oo 


CD) 10 


CO >■- 


o 


; zeSip 


"~ *" 


o_ 




P" 




H" 






1 


p- co 




»- c\ 


CN 


CN 


■- H ID 


1 


— CN 


CO 


lUfi 






1 


i 




1 




j 














1 


1; 










t ^ 




























iS 
















CM 


o 


CN CO 




P- CN 




m ■*- t- 


CN »■ 


c 






•- n 


' V 


| 








*■ 


1" 










, 










"" 










•Mi 


I 






1 

1 




1 






























HaggjgB ,. ; ^ 


n 




i j 


r-- n 


O 


cc 


an *- 


o r» co 


«- ml <o 


co en o 


CI ** 


r^ 


COl CO 






i"* 






vf) Ol 


m 




n ro 


n tc o 


CO cq CN 
CN Cj CO_ 


CN' t- CO 


•9 CO 


=3 




o-'—tS 0410 


CD 


' 






j 


CO cc 


m 




co_ CN 


s O CO 


in co h- 


CN CN 


in 


CN 


CN 






SSo>3 g ; £ 


Ol" 


1 








en" m 


d 


fv-.* 


en* d 


»-" m" m" 


in cq d 


n." en *- 


O* IT 


«r 


LT 


d 






CO 




i 




i 


m oi 


m 


0J 


o co 


in co en 


o c\i ^ 


m cd in 


co a 


■ 


CO 


o 








o 


i 


















»- CNj CB 


CN »■ 












1 






I 






! 
i 




























s^igfes 1 




j 




: 


1 




j 




CN «- 


CN CN «- 


«- CN 


















^^j-'H;J 






•-H.n 


,_ 


CN 


m t- cm 


CN ^ 


^ 


•ii*- 








. 








»- 




»- 






























IlllSi ' I'i 


1 r. 


i 


1 








1 




1 


\- 


1 


3ap=3!5s ■ 




B 


PI 


« 


: in 




p» 


CO 


in i- 


h- 


m 


in 




1^ ii o 


"^PP?7 ' ' 




to 


n 


■ 


i as 




■ 


m 


CO CO 


co 


CO 


(O 




CO IV 






IC 


' "1 












1 r- 


co_ o_ • 




CO 


• • 00 




m 




»» to 


m 


4?££5c^ 






2 


CN 


CM 


H 






B 


co* 


in m" 




in" 


in" 




■ 




d a 


d 








cc 


CO 


m 


!m 






^ 


CO 


r-. CO 




CN 


r- 




h- 




co rv 


o 


iatESmZi 








I 












Tf 






r~ 










cs 


<o 


bigrafg. 








































§£«S£?J 






1 


. 




1 


































HI 


— 


I*" 




- 


r-. 


i- CN 


- 


- 


- 




•^ n •» 


HJaisreSl ' ! 


' 








it 








' 'I 




' "1 


i ' 






-viaSiraat ! ' 


! 1' 












1 




i 


1 




ggjigjiji 


1 | 
















j j 










rsj^jagjg > : > 


'>' 








> 


— " 


S x 


= > ^ 


> > 


= _ : =' 


> > 




^ 


■Stf^*!^ XX 


X 


X 


X X 


> 


XXX 


X X 


> X X 


X X 


X 


*5&au«rea' y— , }— 


H 


P-! 


p- p- 


p- 


1- p- 


p- v- t- 


1- 1- 


>- t- h- 


t- >- 


I— 


H K 




!Z 


2 


z z 


Z 


z z 


2 2 2 


2 2 


2 2 2 


2 Z 


z 


2 2 


~^pW= CO CO : 


< 


< 


< < 


< 


< < 


< < < 


< < 


< < < 


< < 


< 


< < 


il- 


p- 


y- i- 


p- 


p- p- 


p- p- p- 


1- 1- 


1- H t- 


K t- 


1- 


K K 


w 


co 


C0 CO 


co 


C0 CO 


C0 CO CO 


CO CO 


CO CO CO 


C0 CO 


CO 


CO CO 


!<ijferH co '■ co i 

S?|fei§i CO . CO 


:to 


CO 


CO CO 


n 


CO CO 


CO CO CO 


CO CO 


CO CO CO 


CO CO 


CO 


CO CO 


,co 


CO 


CO CO 


BO 


CO CO 


CO CO CO 


CO CO 


CO CO CO 


CO CO 


CO 


CO CO 


. r 


.;< 


< 


1 


.< 




< 




< 


< 




< 


< < 


< < < 


< < 




< < < 


< < 




< 


< < 






< 



< < 



<<<<<<<< 

00000000 



I ■ I I 

< < 

o o 



< < _ 

000 



■Bus 


LUi 


nil 


■ UJ ■ 


UJ 


LLI 


UJ 


1.: 


UJ 


1:1 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


UJ 


Ul 


UJ 


Ul 


Ul 


UJ. 


Ul 


Ul 


4-a. 


°-i 


In.! 


0. 


Ql 


a. 


a. 





a 


r. 


a 


0. 


.-. 


a. 


a. 


a 


a. 


1 


a. 


a. 


a. 


0. 


O7C0 


CO 


CO- 


CO' 


CO 


CO 


CO 


X 


M 


Efl 


CO 


X 


co 


CO 


CO 


co 


co 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 















































„ 1 CD 1 K. 




to 









01 in 


c 


^^^^ CO ' CO 




tr- 




r- 




CD ■ |v 






io 




CO 




CO CO 








' r_ 




P" 




v «■ 




SI ! 















< 
1 










K 








""^^JtSS 








< 








- 




S 




O 
O 












Ul 
.r- 

n 




Z 
O 












>- 




,_ 








. 




CO 




< 








fpHRSfSp 




r- 




iK 








Hnfldr^f rn tn 




2 




l- 








^^^^BS 7 7 








r. 








«MR^fn~' ^ ° 




^ 




XL 




u. u. 




^^NS : S 




LCI 




< 

r- 




U. L_ 




tiffffi28%ci: uj ' uj 




h- 




Z 




UJ LU 






n 


UJ 




LU 


re 


X X 




- ; - ■ O . LU CC' 



p- 


a. 




p- 


C_ 


C 
p- 


CO CO 


n 


'injijfnj 


H 


"q; l O 


ts 


ip- 


p- 


h- 


H 


U- UL 


u. 




UJ 


Ul 


LU 


2 


2 


X X 


X 


--^i-^;Q:fr tr 


cr 


ct 


£T 


~ 


K 


CO CO 


CO 



cDcoocNcomcor- 



r~- »- cn ^ , 

ID s s s 

CO ■ CO CO CO 



000 





C3 





D 


□ 














co 
3 

r- 
< 




_ _ _ 


tl 


IL 


cc 


u 


IL 




K 


k a. 


cr 


X 






z z z 


z 


z 


z 


r 


z 




O 





a 


:: 




















p- 


r- r- 


p- 


1— 






oC 00 cc 


4 


4 


-: 


« 


=>: 




O 


O O 


u 









CO CO CO 


c- 


oa 


co 


■ 


■ 




Ul 


Ul Ul 


UJ 


LU 




CO 




z z z 

000 


Z 
C 


z: 

a 


c 


3 

c 


Z 

c 




_j 




_l _l 

O O 


_j 








UJ 

X 




1- r- h- 


h 


p- 


p- 


p- 


h 




CI 


O O 


CJ 


{) 




K 




< < < 

OOO 


< 


< 

u 


< 


< 
u 


< 
U 




X 

< 


X X 

< < 


X 

< 


X 

< 




LL 

a 




z z z 


^ 


^ 


^ 


^1 


z 




1 1 


^~ 


- 




K 




DD3 


3 


_■ 


D 


3 


_- 




K 


0: at 


r 


r 




Z 




2 2 2 


S 


c: 


^ 


S 


^ 




Ul 


LU UJ 


.:: 


111 




LU 




2 2 2 


:• 


3 


a 


S 


s 




c: 


IX D- 


cr 


Ci 




2 




OOO 











Q 


n 




3 


D D 


3 


3 




1- 




OOO 


r 


C3 


13 


C) 







CO 


CO CO 


CO 


co 








LU LU Ul 


Ul 


Ul 


i:i 


Ul 


u 




< 


< < 


< 


< 








I I ■ 


1 


_t 


_i 


_l 






_j 


LU Ul 


CJ 


cu 








LU LU UJ 


in 


11; 


in 


III 


in 




X 


a: X 


at 


a 








I- r- r- 


K 


H 


_H 


1- 


t- 


c 
p- 


r- 


r- p- 


— 


_p- 




p- 


Q 


p- 










CO CO CO 


CO 


CO 


co 


co 


co 


c~ 


X 

p- 


X X 

p- p- 


X 

1- 


X 

1- 


X 

1- 


a 

5 



5 


p- r- p- 


- 


H 


- 


p- 


— 


h 


p- 


p- r- 


p- 


p- 


p- 



Ul Ul 

2 2 



5 5 o 



5 5 5 o 



70 




City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance Committee 

Members: Supervisors Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin and Matt Gonzalez 
Clerk: Gail Johnson 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102-4689 



Wednesday, April 11, 2001 



10:00 AM 

Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin, Matt Gonzalez. 



MEETING CONVENED 

The meeting convened at 10:06 a.m. 

010249 [Government Funding, Department of Elections] 

Ordinance appropriating 52,538,692 from the General Fund Reserve to fund salaries, fringe benefits, other 
current expenses, materials and supplies, and equipment for the Department of Elections for fiscal year 2000- 
2001. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

2/7/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

3/14/01, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Heard in Committee. Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Dr. Phillip Paris, Acting 

Director of Elections, Chnstiane Hayashi, Department of Elections; Edward Harrington, Controller; Bill Lee. City Administrator; Shelley 

Bradford-Bell; Chris Bowman, Citizens Advisory Committee on Elections; Gloria LawTence, APR1. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Christiane Hayashi. Department of Elections; 

Dr. Phil Paris. 

Amendment of the Whole prepared in Committee. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 

Ordinance appropriating S2.41 1,887 from the General Fund Reserve to fund salaries, fringe benefits, other 
current expenses, materials and supplies, and equipment for the Department of Elections for fiscal year 2000- 
2001; placing funds in the amount of $800,000 on reserve: placing an additional S25 1,000 of previously 
appropriated Fiscal Year 2000-2001 funds for the Department on reserve; providing for ratification of action 
previously taken. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 2: N PM 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



April 11,2001 



010532 |Bicycle Transit Improvements at Cesar Chavez| 
Supervisors Maxwell, Ammiano, Newsom 

Resolution approving the Cooperative Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and the State 

of California Department of Transportation concerning the construction and financing of a bicycle overcrossing 

and at-grade pedestrian/bicycle path widening on Highway 101 at Cesar Chavez Street in San Francisco and 

directing and ratifying certain actions in connection with this Resolution. 

3/26/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee 

4/4/01 , CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speaker: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. 

Continued to April 1 1 , 200 1 . 

Heard in Committee. Speaker: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. 
RECOMMENDED., by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



010529 |Cesar Chavez City Holiday | 

Supervisors Sandoval, Gonzalez, Daly. McGoldrick. Maxwell. Ammiano 

Ordinance amending Chapter 16, Article 1 of the San Francisco Administrative Code by adding Section 16.5 to 

create an official holiday for March 31st, the birthday of Cesar Chavez. 

3/26/01 . RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Rules Committee 

4/4/01, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee 4/4/01 - Transferred at the direction of the President. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Sandoval: Han-ey Rose, Budget Analyst; Steve Kawa, Mayor's 
Office; Theodore Lakey. Deputy City Attorney 

Amended at the end of line 1 4 to add the following: "This section will not create a paid holiday for Grv 
employees until funds have been allocated for this holiday. " 
AMENDED. 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



010398 [Reserved Funds, Recreation and Park Department! 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds. Recreation and Park Department (fiscal year 2000-2001 budget), 
in the amount of $1,214,826 to enable the department to recruit the necessary staff to manage, design, and 
construct those facilities anticipated in the Department's Capital Plan. (Recreation and Park Department) 
2/28/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Elizabeth Goldstein. General Manager, 
Recreation and Park Department; Gary Hoy, Recreation and Park Department; Patrick Hannan. 
Neighborhood Parks Council; Joanic Levi 
Release of funds in the amount of SI 27.695 approved 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Gonzalez 



City and Count}- of San Francisco 



Printed at 2:15 PV on i .5 N 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



April 11, 2001 



010358 [Reserved Funds, District Attorney] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, District Attorney's Office (fiscal year 2000-01 budget), in the 
amount of S55,000 to fund the Quality of Life Program. (District Attorney) 
2/22/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Tim Silard, District Attorney's Office; Will 
Leong, Executive Director, Pre-Trial Diversion, District Attorney's Office; Mara Rader, Coalition on 
Homelessness, Civil Rights Division; Ron Rucker, Coalition on Homelessness, Civil Rights Division. 
Release of funds in the amount of $55,000 approved. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Gonzalez 

Absent: 1 - Peskin 



001895 [Reserved Funds, Department of the Environment] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Department of the Environment (Fiscal year 2000-2001 Budget), 

in the amount of $146,244 to implement the department's energy conservation programs. (Environment) 

10/24/00, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

1 1/29/00, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR 

12/20/00, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Heard in Committee. Speaker: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. Continued at the 

request of department. 

2/1/01, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. New committee structure. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Francesco Vietor, Director, Department of the 

Environment. 

Release of funds in the amount of $146,244 approved. 

APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Gonzalez 

Absent: 1 - Peskin 



010472 [Extension of real property lease at 575 Polk Street] 

Resolution authorizing exercise of option regarding an extension of a real property lease at 575 Polk Street, on 

behalf of the Superior Court of San Francisco. (Real Estate Department) 

3/16/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Anthony Delucchi, Real Estate Division, 

Department of Administrative Serxnces; Neil Tanaguchi. Superior Court. 

RECOMMENDED., by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Gonzalez 

Absent: 1 - Peskin 



010473 [Acquisition of noise easements for insulation of four religious assembly buildings and one skilled- 
nursing facility] 

Resolution authorizing the acquisition of 5 noise easements for properties located in the City of San Bruno. 

(Real Estate Department) 

3/19/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Anthony Delucchi. Real Estate Division. 

Department of Administrative Sennces. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Gonzalez 

Absent: 1 - Peskin 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 1iI5 I'M M 3 3 04 



I ■'inane? Committee Meeting Minutes April 1 1, 2001 



010466 {Appropriation, funding for the increase of expenditures on the Indigent Defense Program| 

Ordinance appropriating $1,200,000 from the General Fund Reserve for the projected shortfall in the Indigent 
Defense Program at the Trial Court for fiscal year 2000-01; providing for ratification of action previously 
taken. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

3/12/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers. Gordon Park-Li, Chief Executive Officer, Superior Court; Male Speaker. 

Continued to April 18, 2001. 

CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Leno, Gonzalez 

Absent: 1 - Peskin 



ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at 2:1 5 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 4 Printed at 2:15 PM on • .' (U 



[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



35 




CITY AND COUNTY SyHsflLj? OF SAN FRANCISCO 

^IJIP/ DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

JBOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST SAN FRANCISCO 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7&UBLIC LIBRARY 
FAX (415) 252-0461 

April 5, 2001 

TO: ^Finance Committee 

FROM: ' JBudget Analyst 

SUBJECT: April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 1 - File 01-0249 

Note: This ordinance was continued by the Finance Committee at its 
meeting of March 14, 2001. 

Department: Department of Elections 

Item: Supplemental appropriation ordinance for $2,538,692 

from the General Fund Reserve to fund salaries, fringe 
benefits, other current expenses, materials and supplies 
and equipment. 

Amount: $2,538,692 

Source of Funds: General Fund Reserve 

Budget: Temporary Salaries $498,572 

Overtime-Miscellaneous 620,564 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits 86,845 

Other Current Expenses 541,570 

Materials and Supplies 316,971 

Equipment Purchase 71,201 
Services of Other Depts. 
Dept. of Telecommunication & Information 

Services (DTIS) 122,416 

DTIS - Citywatch 7,829 

City Attorney 15,000 

Parking and Traffic 47,724 

Purchasing-Reproduction 10,000 

DPW-Building Repairs 75,000 

DPW-Administration 125.000 

Total $2,538,692 



Memo to Finance Committee 
April 11, 2001 Finance Committee 

Description: The proposed supplemental appropriation for $2,538,692 
would fund a projected FY 2000-2001 deficit for the 
Department of Elections pertaining to (1) the November 2000 
General Election, (2) the December 2000 Runoff Elections for 
the Board of Supervisors and (3) the Department's projected 
operating costs for the remainder of the fiscal year. Mr. Ara 
Minasian of the Department of Administrative Services 
advises that approximately $1,838,692 or 72.4 percent of the 
requested $2,538,692 has already been incurred by the 
Department. The projected deficits, by amounts are described 
as follows: 

Temporary Salaries 

The Department is requesting an additional $498,572 to pay 
for the increase in Temporary Salaries staff hours consisting 
of: (a) high turnover of Permanent Staff, which led to the 
need to hire more Temporary Staff (projected Permanent 
Staff salary savings of $332,046 are being used to offset the 
total projected $829,618 increase in Temporary Staff 
salaries) for a net deficit of $497,572; and (b) a $1,000 
increase in Premium Pay for Temporary Staff because 
approximately 12 employees were required to work during 
the night shift due to space limitations during the day. 
Therefore, a total $498,572 is being requested. Other reasons 
for this deficit include: (1) the logistical difficulties of dealing 
with the three-page, 19 inch by 9.75 inch November of 2000 
ballot affected the Department's operation at all phases of 
the election process thereby requiring additional Temporary 
Staff to be used to move, sort and tabulate the ballots; (2) the 
recruitment, training and scheduling of additional 
pollworkers by Temporary Staff; and, (3) the current 
reapportionment task, which will extend through February of 
2002, based on the 2000 U.S. Census in which the 
Congressional Districts will be redrawn, requiring the 
Department to require additional Temporary Staff to review 
the boundaries and modify the voters' precinct assignments 
and locations. The Department advises that they will be 
requesting an as yet undetermined amount of additional 
Temporary Salary funds to complete the reapportionment 
task in the forth coming FY 2001-02 budget. 

Mr. Minasian states that $1,050,938 was originally budgeted 
for Temporary Staff in FY 2000-01, $1,786,477 has been 
expended to date, and $1,880,556 is projected to be expended 
by the end of FY 2000-01, an increase of $829,618, or 78.9 
percent more than budgeted. It should be noted that these 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance Committee 
April 11, 2001 Finance Committee 



additional Temporary Salary funds are not to cover the costs 
of the additional pollworkers located at each polling place, 
since these pollworker expenses are included under Other 
Current Expenses. An estimated $735,539 of the $829,618 in 
Temporary Salary monies over the approved hudget has 
already incurred hy the Department, prior to obtaining 
appropriation approval hy the Board of Supervisors. 

Overtime-Miscellaneous 

The Department is requesting an additional $620,564 to pay 
for Overtime worked by both Temporary staff ($580,564) and 
Permanent staff ($40,000). According to Ms. Christiane 
Hayashi, the City Attorney assigned to work as the 
Community Outreach Manager at the Department of 
Elections, the Overtime expenses for both the Permanent 
and Temporary Staff was primarily due to (1) the 
implementation of the new optical voting technology system, 
which was more complicated than anticipated, (2) the failure 
of the optical voting technology system vendor, Election 
Systems and Software Inc. (ESS), to fulfill their contractual 
obligations (See Comment No. 7), and (3) the limited space at 
the Department of Elections at City Hall, which necessitated 
the use of various small offices throughout City Hall as well 
as other facilities (i.e., Bill Graham Auditorium, Brooks Hall 
and Pier 39), which made each task far more time- 
consuming, according to Ms. Hayashi. Additionally, Ms. 
Hayashi states that additional Overtime expenditures were 
incurred because of the high Permanent staff turnover. 

A total of $199,436 'was budgeted for Overtime for 
Permanent and Temporary employees in FY 2000-01, but, 
according to Mr. Minasian, $820,000 is projected to be spent 
by the end of FY 2000-01 on Overtime for both Permanent 
and Temporary employees, an increase of $620,564, or over 
311 percent more than budgeted. Mr. Minasian advises that 
there is no budgeted Overtime for either Permanent or 
Temporary staff for the remainder of FY 2000-01. The 
expenditure of additional Overtime funds of $620,564 has 
already been incurred by the Department, prior to obtaining 
appropriation approval from the Board of Supervisors. 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits 

The Department is requesting an additional $86,845 to pay 
for the Mandatory Fringe Benefits associated with the 
projected deficits in Temporary Salary and Overtime- 
Miscellaneous costs identified above. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance Committee 
April 11, 2001 Finance Committee 



Other Current Expenses 

The Department is requesting an additional $541,570 to 
offset the costs for (1) the longer 3-page ballots and Voter 
Information Pamphlets, (2) pollworker fees, (3) rental of 
polling locations, (4) increased postage and delivery costs, 
(5) additional printing expenses, (6) community outreach 
and advertising, (7) translation services, (8) computer 
programming assistance, (9) the rental of vehicles, 
property and equipment and (10) the service fee payment 
to ESS. Some of the more significant cost overruns are 
discussed below. 

The Department had estimated ballot costs of $512,000 
based on a two-page ballot for the November, 2000 
election, but the large number of initiatives and 
candidates required a three-page ballot, which cost 
$738,853, $226,853 or 44.3 percent more than budgeted. 
According to Ms. Hayashi, the Department did not know 
the length of the ballot until after the FY 2000-01 budget 
was approved, because the due date filing ballot measures 
was August 9, 2000 and the due date for the candidate 
filings was August 16, 2000. Therefore, Ms. Hayashi 
advises that it was impossible to know the length of the 
ballot until September of 2000. Mr. Minasian notes that 
the Department budgeted $306,400 for the ballots for the 
December runoff election, but only 6pent $205,244, a 
savings of $101,156, which the Department used to 
partially offset the increased cost from the November 
election. Therefore, the total additional costs for the 
ballots was $125,697 ($226,853 less $101,156). 

In addition, the Department estimated costs of $485,000 
for the Voter Information Pamphlet based on a 175-page 
historical average, but the actual November Pamphlet 
was 300 pages, which cost $654,093, including all of the 
additional translation and printing costs, an increase of 
$169,093, or 34.9 percent. Mr. Minasian advises that the 
Voter Information Pamphlet for December was estimated 
to cost $131,500, but only cost $95,561, a savings of 
$35,939, which the Department again used to partially 
offset the increased costs of the November Voter 
Information Pamphlet. Therefore, the total deficit for the 
Voter Information Pamphlet was $133,154 ($169,093 less 
$35,939). 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Memo to Finance Committee 
April 11, 2001 Finance Committee 






According to Ms. Hayashi, California State Election Code 
Section 12304 requires that at least 3 poll workers, 
including one Inspector, be placed at each polling location. 
Ms. Hayashi states that there are 637 polling places in 
San Francisco. Therefore, the Department needed to hire 
at least 1,911 poll workers. Ms. Hayashi states that the 
Department hired approximately 2,792 or approximately 
4.4 poll workers per polling site for the November election 
and approximately 2,167 or 3.4 poll workers per polling 
site for the December election. According to Ms. Hayashi, 
the Department hired these additional poll workers to 
ensure that there were sufficient poll workers to assist 
voters in using the new optical voting technology system. 
Ms. Hayashi states that the daily pay rate for the poll 
worker is $82 and $105 for the Inspectors. The total cost 
for the poll workers, including training and related fees 
was approximately $416,000 in November and $230,000 
in December, for a total cost of approximately $646,000 
for both elections. 

The Department also significantly underestimated the 
costs of postage at $386,500. The actual postage cost was 
$808,500, $422,000 or 109.2 percent more than the 
amount budgeted for the Voter Information Pamphlets 
and the absentee ballots for both the November and 
December elections. 

In addition to the costs of renting the 637 polling sites at 
an estimated cost of $89,000 for the two elections, the 
Department budgeted a total of $50,000 for the rental of 
facilities, equipment and vehicles for FY 2000-01, the 
same amount budgeted in FY 1999-2000. However, the 
Department actually projects spending $59,322 for the 
rental of facilities, $80,904 for rental of equipment 
(including a total of $23,636 for portable toilets at various 
polling sites) and $101,556 for the rental of vehicles, for a 
total rental cost of $241,782, which is $191,782 or 383.6 
percent more than the $50,000 the Department budgeted. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to Finance Committee 
April 11, 2001 Finance Committee 



Also included in these Other Current Expenses is an 
additional $251,000 service fee payment to Election 
Systems and Software, Inc. (ESS), the optical scanning 
technology equipment vendor (See Comment No. 7). 

Mr. Minasian states that in addition to the total budgeted 
costs of $2,469,669 for Other Current Expenses, an 
additional $1,173,791, or 47.5 percent more than 
budgeted is projected to be expended by the end of FY 
2000-2001, for a total of $3,643,461. The additional 
$1,173,791 includes (1) $125,697 for the ballots, (2) 
$133,154 for the Voter Information Pamphlet, (3) 
approximately $75,500 for the additional poll workers, (4) 
$422,000 for postage, (5) $191,782 for the rental of 
facilities, equipment and vehicles and (6) $225,658 for 
various miscellaneous increases. Mr. Minasian advises 
that the additional $1,173,791 in Other Current Expenses 
will be covered by the proposed supplemental 
appropriation in the requested amount of $541,570, as 
well as with $540,556 in unexpended capital project 
carry-forward funds remaining from the supplemental 
appropriation in FY 1999-2000 and $91,665 in 
interdepartmental recovery funds 1 (See Comment No. 4). 

Materials and Supplies 

The Department is requesting an additional $316,971 for 
Materials and Supplies to primarily pay for the costs of 
4,600 new voting booths. According to Ms. Hayashi, the 
Department had budgeted $375,000 for the cost of these 
new voting booths based on a verbal agreement between 
the booth vendor, Election Data Corporation, and a 
previous Department of Election Division Manager that 
the vendor would honor a trade-in. However, according to 
Ms. Hayashi, the vendor did not honor the voting booth 
trade-in, which meant that the Department under- 
budgeted for the costs of the voting booths by 
approximately $230,000, since the total cost of the voting 
booths was $605,000 ($375,000 plus $230,000). Ms. 
Hayashi further states that since the trade-in agreement 
was only a verbal agreement between the vendor and a 
prior Department employee, and documentation is not 



1 Mr. Minasian advises that the Department will receive a total of $91,665 of workorder 
funds from the Retirement Board and the Health Services Board to conduct their own 
Departmental elections for each of these City Boards. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Finance Committee 
April 11, 2001 Finance Committee 



available, the Department is not pursuing recovery of 
these additional costs. The new voting booths have an 
estimated life-span of 15 years. Mr. Minasian advises that 
that the" remaining $86,971 (the $316,971 request less 
$230,000 for the voting booths) for Materials and Supplies 
is primarily for the increased costs for the envelopes and 
mailing of the larger than anticipated absentee and 
provisional ballots. 

Equipment Purchase 

The Department is requesting an additional $71,201 for 
(1) $6,201 in additional computer equipment costs and (2) 
"$65,000 in net interest costs for the optical voter machine 
lease. It should be noted that a total of $3,249,739 was 
budgeted for equipment purchases, primarily for the new 
optical voting technology system for the Department in 
FY 2000-01. 

Dent, of Telecommunication and Information Services 
(DTIS) 

The Department is requesting an additional $122,416 to 
pay the Department of Telecommunication and 
Information Services (DTIS) for the staff and technical 
assistance during the implementation of the optical scan 
voting system and for routine support of the Department 
of Elections network and computer equipment needs. Ms. 
Hayashi advises that the Department needed additional 
DTIS support because they were unable to hire an in- 
house information systems person, whom they had hoped 
to hire earlier, and therefore they underbudgeted the 
amount they needed for DTIS. Ms. Hayashi advises that 
with the in-house information systems staff which have 
now been hired, the DTIS assistance should be reduced in 
the future. The expenditure of this $122,416 for 
additional DTIS services has already been incurred by the 
Department, prior to obtaining appropriation approval 
from the Board of Supervisors. 

DTIS-Citvwatch 

The Department is requesting an additional $7,829 to pay 
for the crew, equipment and videotape provided by 
Citywatch for the production and post-production of the 
Department's Public Service Announcement and 
informational videos created between August 3, 2000 and 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

7 



Memo to Finance Committee 
April 11, 2001 Finance Committee 



October 16, 2000. The expenditure of this $7,829 for these 
Public Service Announcements and informational videos 
has already been incurred by the Department of 
Elections, prior to obtaining appropriation approval from 
the Board of Supervisors. 

City Attorney 

The Department is requesting an additional $15,000 to 
pay for Ms. Hayashi's salary and fringe benefits for the 
remainder of the FY 2000-01. According to Ms. Hayashi, 
she was assigned to duties including contract 
management and Community Outreach Manager for the 
"Department of Elections beginning in February of 2000. 
The Department originally budgeted $60,000 as a 
workorder for the City Attorney for FY 2000-01. If the 
proposed supplemental appropriation of $15,000 is 
approved, a total of $75,000 would be appropriated for 
City Attorney services this fiscal year. 

According to Ms. Martie Moore from the City Attorney's 
Office, Ms. Hayashi's annual salary and fringe benefits 
total $137,580 and Ms. Hayashi is assigned full-time to 
the Department of Elections. Ms. Moore advises that she 
has billed the Department $68,790 for Ms. Hayashi's 
services from July 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000, 
and she will bill the Department of Elections an 
additional $68,790 for the second half of FY 2000-01, for a 
total of $137,580. Therefore, the proposed supplemental 
appropriation for the subject request for Ms. Hayashi's 
salary and benefits in the amount of $15,000 would not be 
sufficient to cover the additional costs of $68,790 for Ms. 
Hayashi, given the fact that the Department already owes 
the City Attorney's Office an additional $8,790 ($68,790 
billed less $60,000 originally budgeted) for the first half of 
FY 2000-01. Therefore, the total projected amount owed 
to the City Attorney is $77,580 ($137,580 less $60,000 
budgeted). 

To pay for the additional City Attorney expense of 
$77,580, Mr. Minasian states that, the Department will 
use a $20,000 surplus in Mail Servicing, together with the 
proposed supplemental appropriation for $15,000. Mr. 
Minasian also indicates that the Department will 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

8 



Memo to Finance Committee 
April 11, 2001 Finance Committee 

negotiate with the City Attorney for the remainder of the 
balance of $42, 580. 

Parking and Traffic 

The Department is requesting an additional $47,724 to 
pay the Department of Parking and Traffic, for the 
November and December elections, in which the 
Department of Elections arranged to have Parking 
Control Officers (PCOs) pick up the optical scan system 
memory packs 2 from each of the polling places 
immediately after the polls closed and transport them to 
City Hall. The Budget Analyst questions the expenditure 
- -of these funds for DPTs PCOs to transport the optical 
scan system memory packs, instead of using some of the 
Department of Elections pollworkers from each site, 
especially since the Department of Elections had already 
hired additional pollworkers to staff each election site and 
rented numerous vehicles. According to Mr. Phillip Paris, 
the Acting Director of Elections, the pollworkers did not 
deliver the memory packs to City Hall because most did 
not have their own vehicles and the Election Inspector 
had to wait until the ballots were picked up by the 
Department of Public Works, which would have caused 
significant delays. The expenditure of this $47,724 has 
already been incurred by the Department prior to 
obtaining appropriation approval from the Board of 
Supervisors. 

Purchasing - Reproduction 

The Department is requesting an additional $10,000 to 
pay the Reproduction Division of the Purchasing 
Department for the costs of poll worker training manuals 
and voter information packets. The expenditure of this 
$10,000 has already been incurred prior to obtaining 
appropriation approval from the Board of Supervisors. 
According to Mr. Minasian, additional expenditures 
beyond this requested $10,000 will not be workordered to 
Reproduction Services for the remainder of the fiscal year. 



2 The optical scan system memory packs record the votes as the ballots are scanned into the 
Eagle, the optical scan voting machine that reads the ballots. The memory packs can be 
removed from the Eagle and taken to City Hall where the voting results are downloaded. 
The votes are subsequently certified. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

9 



Memo to Finance Committee 
April 11, 2001 Finance Committee 

Department of Public Works - Building Repairs 
The Department is requesting an additional $75,000 to 
pay the Building Repair Division of the Department of 
Public Works (DPW) for the costs of making modifications 
and repairs to the Department of Elections office and 
public spaces, that were used temporarily for the 
November and December elections of 2000 (See Comment 
No. 5). 

Department of Public Works - Administration 
The Department is requesting an additional $125,000 to 
" pay DPWs Administration Division because the 
"November, 2000 three-page ballots were too heavy for the 
poll workers to transport. As a result, the Department of 
Elections arranged for DPW staff to both deliver the 
November ballots to each precinct on election morning 
and to pick them up that evening. For the one-page 
December election, the poll workers transported the 
ballots themselves (See Comment No. 6). 

Comments: 1. Attachment 1, provided by Ms. Hayashi, explains some 

of the factors associated with the new voting technology 
that was implemented for the November and December 
2000 elections, which partially resulted in the projected 
deficit necessitating this proposed supplemental 
appropriation request. In addition, Mr. Paris, who was 
hired in November of 2000, advises that a high turnover 
in the Department's Division Manager staff also resulted 
in a lack of adequate management and supervision of 
Temporary personnel, Overtime and some of the Other 
Current Expenses during this period. According to Mr. 
Minasian, there are four Permanent Division Manager 
positions within the Department including (1) one 
Division Manager position which has been vacant for over 
one year, (2) one Division Manager position which has 
remained vacant since the Spring of 2000, (3) one Division 
Manager position which became vacant in October of 
2000, and (4) one Division Manager position which 
became vacant in February of 2001. As a result, there are 
no Division Manager positions currently filled in the 
Department. In addition, the Director of the Department 
is currently on maternity leave. Mr. Minasian advises 
that these positions will remain vacant for the rest of this 
fiscal year, in order to provide Permanent Salary Savings 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
10 



Memo to Finance Committee 
April 11, 2001 Finance Committee 

of $332,046 to offset a portion of the Temporary Salary- 
funds requested in the subject supplemental 
appropriation. 

2. The Department of Elections had an original total FY 
1999-2000 budget of $4,455,403, to cover their annual 
operating expenses, including the costs of the November 
of 1999 election and the March of 2000 election. Exactly 
one year ago, in March of 2000, the Board of Supervisors 
approved a General Fund supplemental appropriation for 
$2,290,097, primarily to cover the one-time costs of (1) an 
unplanned third election in FY 1999-2000 for the 
December of 1999 Mayoral and District Attorney run-off 
election ($1,482,730), (2) purging the voter rolls 
($210,309), (3) upgrading the Department's information 
and voter registration scanning systems ($497,058) and 
(4) providing funding for the necessary project 
management and critical technical resources to ensure 
that the new optical scan vote count system was 
implemented successfully ($100,000). The Department 
thus received a total budget of $6,745,500 in FY 1999- 
2000. 

For FY 2000-2001, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
budget of $10,051,234 for the Department, which was 
$5,595,831, or approximately 126 percent more than the 
FY 1999-2000 original budget to cover the Department's 
annual operating and capital expenses, including the 
anticipated costs of a November of 2000 General Election 
and a December of 2000 runoff election. The primary FY 
2000-2001 budgetary increases of $5,595,831 included (1) 
$3,241,739 for the purchase of a new optical scan vote 
count system, (2) $1,003,416 for a new Election Services 
Project, which was a special enhanced project team 
intended to ensure the successful implementation of the 
new optical scan vote count system, and (3) $969,013 for 
additional expenditures related to the ballots for the new 
optical scan vote count system. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation request for an 
additional $2,538,692 would result in a total budget 
appropriation of $12,589,926 for the Department of 
Elections in FY 2000-01, or $5,844,426, or 86.6 percent 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Finance Committee 
April 11, 2001 Finance Committee 



more than the FY 1999-2000 total revised budget of 
$6,745,500. 

3. The Budget Analyst notes that of the requested 
supplemental appropriation of $2,538,692, approximately 
$1,838,692 has already been expended, without obtaining 
prior appropriation approval from the Board of 
Supervisors. According to Mr. Paris, the former Director 
of Elections, Patricia Fado, authorized these much higher 
than anticipated expenditures. Ms. Taylor Emerson of the 
Mayor's Office advises that the former Director of the 
Department of Elections verbally notified the Mayor's 
Office prior to the November of 2000 election that the 
Department of Elections would not have sufficient funds 
in their budget to conduct the November and December 
2000 elections, and would require a supplemental 
appropriation during FY 2000-01 to cover these additional 
expenses. However, the Budget Analyst was not provided 
with such notification for the Board of Supervisors. 
Attachment 2, provided by Mr. Paris identifies plans that 
the Department has to contain costs in the future, 
including one-time only expenditures that occurred 
during FY 2000-2001 that are not expected to occur in 
subsequent years. 

4. The Budget Analyst's review of the Controller's records 
found that the Department shifted $900,000 from Capital 
Expenses to cover the additional Other Current Expenses 
that the Department was incurring. The Department had 
budgeted $3,241,739 for Capital Expenses for the 
purchase of the optical scan voting technology system and 
to date, has authorized payments of $2,400,000 for this 
system through a third party loan arrangement, leaving a 
remaining balance of approximately $800,000 to be paid, 
assuming interest earnings on the original loan amount. 
However, the Department is currently negotiating with 
the optical scan voting technology system vendor, ESS, to 
determine whether the City should continue to purchase 
this system or apply the previous payments to a lease of 
this equipment, such that the $800,000 additional 
purchase payments might not be necessary and to resolve 
outstanding contract issues (See Comment No. 7). Ms. 
Hayashi advises that the amount that will be due to ESS 
may change as a result of these negotiations. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Finance Committee 
April 11, 2001 Finance Committee 



The Budget Analyst therefore recommends that the 
Department reserve $800,000 from the subject 
supplemental appropriation request, pending the outcome 
of these contract negotiations. The $800,000 reserve 
would include $541,570 from Other Current Expenses, 
$71,201 from Equipment Purchase and $187,229 from 
Materials and Supplies. In addition, the Budget Analyst 
recommends that the Board of Supervisors reserve an 
additional $251,000 from the Department's already 
appropriated funds for Other Current Expenses for the 
Election Systems and Software, Inc. service fee payment, 
pending the outcome of the contract negotiations and 
•potential modifications (See Comment No. 7). 

5. According to the DPW, a total of $73,195, not $75,000 
was billed to the Department of Elections for 
modifications and repairs. Therefore, the subject 
supplemental appropriation should be reduced by $1,805. 

6. The Department has requested $125,000 to pay DPW 
for DPWs staff overtime costs incurred to transport the 
ballots from each precinct before and after the election. 
However, the Budget Analyst notes that these same 
overtime costs were included in the DPWs request for 
release of $504,225 of overtime costs (File 01-0268). 
Therefore, the requested $125,000 should be deleted from 
the subject supplemental appropriation. 

7. The Department selected Election Systems and 
Software, Inc. (ESS) in March of 1999 foUowing a RFP 
issued by the Department in January of 1998, to supply 
the Department with optical voting machines. As 
previously reported, the Department believed that part of 
the cause for the increased cost to the City was because 
ESS failed to provide support services during the 
November and December of 2000 elections. Ms. Hayashi 
notes that the Department has recently completed the 
first phase of negotiations with ESS and has determined 
that ESS owes the City at least $176,000 for contract 
nonperformance issues during the November and 
December of 2000 elections. Mr. Minasian advises that 
such monies owed to the City by ESS would be remitted to 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



Memo to Finance Committee 
April 11, 2001 Finance Committee 



the General Fund or extended as a credit against future 
lease or purchase payments. 

Ms. Hayashi advises that she is continuing to negotiate 
with ESS regarding contract modifications in order to 
preserve the Department's flexibility in the future, when 
it plans to upgrade to touch-screen voting, estimated to 
cost approximately $10 million to $12 million. Although 
the Department had proposed to purchase the optical 
voting technology system from ESS, as previously noted, 
the Department is currently analyzing the option of 
applying the previous purchase payments as lease 
payments for this equipment, such that whether there 
"will be the need for additional payments and the amount 
of such payments to ESS are not currently known. 

Ms. Hayashi cannot estimate the costs or savings at this 
time that the City may realize from any contract 
modifications because these negotiations are presently in 
progress. Therefore, as noted in Comment No. 4 above, 
the Budget Analyst recommends that (1) the additional 
$800,000 of Capital funds that were to be expended on the 
ESS purchase should be reserved, (2) the $251,000 service 
fee payment to ESS that has previously been 
appropriated be reserved and (3) the Department report 
back to the Finance Committee the results of these 
negotiations with ESS so that the Committee and the full 
Board of Supervisors can be aware of any technological 
and contract changes as well as fiscal impacts that may 
occur due to such negotiations. 

8. Mr. Minasian advises that the Department 
received a total of $24,627 from numerous individuals and 
organizations to offset the costs of the Department of 
Elections conducting the recount from the District 7 
Board of Supervisors Runoff Election in December. Ms. 
Hayashi advises that all of the Department's costs of the 
recount, which were identified by the California Secretary 
of State to be eligible for reimbursement, were offset with 
the $24,627 of revenues received. 






BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

14 



Memo to Finance Committee 
April 11, 2001 Finance Committee 



9. According to Ms. Hayashi, the City permits 
individuals to submit paid arguments on ballot measures 
to be printed in the Voter Information Pamphlet. 
Currently, the Department charges a $200 fee plus $2 a 
word for these paid arguments. Ms. Minasian reports that 
these fees generated total revenues of $113,000, which 
does not fully cover the actual costs of including the paid 
arguments in the Pamphlet. The Department reports that 
the Voter Information Pamphlet for the November 
election cost $654,093. Ms. Hayashi advises that to more 
fully cover the costs of including these arguments in the 
November Pamphlet, the Department would have had to 
"Charge a $500 fee plus $5 a word. However, the 
Department must receive Board of Supervisors approval 
before the Department can change the fees it charges for 
paid arguments. Ms. Hayashi notes that San Francisco is 
the only local California jurisdiction which includes paid 
arguments in its Voter Information Pamphlets. As of the 
writing of this report, Ms. Hayashi has not submitted 
legislation to the Board of Supervisors to change these 
fees. 

10. Revenues for the Department from the paid ballot 
arguments ($71,000) and the candidate fees ($85,000) 
were budgeted at $156,000 for FY 2000-01. Actual 
revenues indicate that the paid ballot arguments 
generated $113,000 and candidate fees generated $53,606 
for a total of $166,606 from these sources, or 
approximately $10,606 more than the $156,000 budgeted 
for Fiscal Year 2000-2001. 

11. In response to the March 14, 2001 Finance 
Committee's inquiries, the Department of Elections, in 
conjunction with the Controller's Office City Projects, 
provided a 25-page written memorandum to the Finance 
Committee on April 3, 2001 on reorganizing and staffing 
for the Department of Elections (DOE). This 
memorandum states that "Due to the multiple changes in 
senior and line management over the past several years, 
the DOE has lacked strong accountability for spending, 
especially as applied to use of staff. It has also been 
without the ability to plan." The proposed reorganization 
and staffing changes outlined in the memorandum are 
intended to address the DOE's previous lack of 
accountability and planning. To develop the proposed 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Finance Committee 
April 11, 2001 Finance Committee 



reorganization plan, DOE compared the Department of 
Election organization charts with seven other California 
counties, including Alameda, Contra Costa, Kern, Los 
Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego and San Mateo Counties. 
The proposed DOE reorganization plan proposes to hire 
additional staff, while also eliminating some staff 
positions and reclassifying other positions. 

Currently, the DOE has 15 Permanent staff and then 
hires Temporary staff during the peak election season to 
accommodate the increased workload. The proposed 
reorganization plan includes 20 3 permanent staff plus five 
permanent seasonal staff at approximately V* average 
time over an election year, or the equivalent of an 
additional 3.75 FTE permanent seasonal staff, for a total 
of 23.75 FTE staff, which would be 8.75 more FTEs than 
the 15 Permanent staff currently authorized in the DOE 
budget, a 58.3 percent increase in Permanent staff. 

Attachment 3, which was included in the April 3, 2001 
memorandum to the Finance Committee, identifies (1) the 
existing FY 2000-2001 DOE budget, (2) the actual 
projected budget for FY 2000-2001 including the subject 
supplemental appropriation and (3) the proposed 
requested FY 2001-2002 budget, which would include the 
requested additional 8.75 FTE Permanent staff positions 
discussed in the subject memorandum. As shown in 
Attachment 3, the requested additional 8.75 FTE 
Permanent positions will result in an estimated increase 
of $651,777 for Permanent Salaries. Attachment 3 also 
includes (1) $900,000 for Temporary Salaries for FY 2001- 
2002, which would be $647,472 less than the $1,547,472 
actual projected expenditures for FY 2000-2001. However, 
the $900,000 in Temporary Salaries would be $49,567 
more than the $850,433 budgeted for FY 2000-2001, and 
(2) $200,000 for Overtime for FY 2001-2002, which would 
be $530,000 less than the actual projected expenditures of 
$730,000 in FY 2000-2001, and comparable to the 
$199,436 budgeted for FY 2000-2001. 



3 The proposed memorandum requests both 20 and 21 permanent positions, in different 
locations of the report. Based on discussions with Mr. Paris and Mr. Minasian regarding this 
inconsistency, the DOE advises that they are proposing 20 permanent staff positions, with 
the potential for one additional full-time staff position to be added which will be offset by a 
reduction of current DTIS expenditures. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Finance Committee 
April 11, 2001 Finance Committee 



The Budget Analyst notes that although the proposed 
memorandum discusses the need for better accountability 
and quality assurance in the DOE, there is no assurance 
that the addition of the proposed Permanent staff will be 
able to control future Temporary and Overtime 
expenditures, as well as the additional Non-Personnel 
costs that were incurred during the November and 
December of 2000 elections. The memorandum simply 
states that "We expect this allocation of permanent staff 
will greatly reduce the need for temporary and overtime 
salaries". The memorandum does not address the Non- 
Personnel expenses. Mr. Paris advises that the creation of 
the proposed additional Permanent staff would provide 
quality assurance and monitoring of expenditures. 

12. In summary, the proposed supplemental 
appropriation for $2,538,692 would fund a projected 
deficit in FY 2000-2001, including $1,838,692 in costs 
incurred by the Department of Elections, prior to 
obtaining appropriation approval from the Board of 
Supervisors. Such costs are related to the November and 
December 2000 elections, as well as projected operating 
costs for the remainder of the fiscal year. For example, the 
Department of Elections overspent (1) Temporary 
Salaries by $829,618 or 78.9 percent more than budgeted, 
(2) Overtime-Miscellaneous by $620,564 or over 311 
percent more than budgeted, (3) Mandatory Fringe 
Benefits by $86,845 to reflect the additional Temporary 
Salary and Overtime-Miscellaneous expenditures, (4) 
Other Current Expenses by $1,173,791 or 47.5 percent 
more than budgeted, (5) Materials and Supplies by 
$316,971, (6) Equipment Purchases by $71,201, and the 
Services of Other City Departments by an additional 
$402,969, including the services of DTIS, City Attorney, 
Parking and Traffic, Reproduction and DPW. The new 
optical scanning voting technology system, as outlined in 
Attachment 1, partially resulted in the proposed 
increased election costs. In addition, as noted in Comment 
No. 1 above, a lack of adequate management and 
supervision of (a) Temporary personnel, (b) Overtime and 
(c) some of the Other Current Expenses contributed to the 
need for the proposed $2,538,692 supplemental 
appropriation request. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Finance Committee 
April 11, 2001 Finance Committee 



In FY 1999-2000, the Department of Elections had a total 
revised budget of $6,745,500 (including $2,290,097 for a 
supplemental appropriation in March of 2000) to cover 
the additional cost of three elections. For FY 2000-2001, 
the Board of Supervisors approved a budget of 
$10,051,234. The proposed supplemental appropriation 
request for an additional $2,538,692 would result in a 
total budget of $12,589,926 for the Department in FY 
2000-2001, which is $5,844,426 or 86.6 percent more than 
the FY 1999-2000 total revised budget of $6,745,500. 
Attachment 2 identifies some cost containment plans 
prepared by the Department for the future. 

The City Attorney recently completed negotiations with 
Elections Systems and Software, Inc. (ESS) pertaining to 
a potential default of some service contract provisions in 
the agreement between the City and ESS and has 
determined that ESS owes the City at least $176,000. 
Additionally, the Department of Elections is continuing 
negotiations regarding contract modifications to 
potentially change the current purchase agreement into a 
lease arrangement or other more flexible arrangements. 

The DOE provided a 25-page memorandum dated April 3, 
2001 to the Finance Committee outlining a proposed 
reorganization and staffing plan for FY 2001-02. This 
plan includes the addition of 8.75 FTE Permanent staff. 
However, there is no assurance that the addition of this 
Permanent staff will be able to control future Temporary 
and Overtime expenditures, as well as the additional 
Non-Personnel costs that were incurred during the 
previous elections. Mr. Paris advises that the creation of 
the proposed additional Permanent staff would provide 
quality assurance and monitoring of expenditures. 

The Budget Analyst recommends that (1) $1,838,692 of 
the proposed supplemental be made retroactive since 
these costs have already been incurred by the 
Department, without obtaining prior approval from the 
Board of Supervisors, (2) the proposed supplemental be 
reduced by $126,805 for DPW expenses, (3) an additional 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Finance Committee 
April 11, 2001 Finance Committee 

$800,000 of Capital funds that were to be paid to ESS for 
the purchase of optical voting technology system be 
reserved, (4) the $251,000 service fee payment to ESS, 
which has previously been appropriated be reserved, and 
(5) the Department report back to the Finance Committee 
the results of the negotiations with ESS so that the 
Committee is advised of any technological and contract 
changes as well as fiscal impacts that result from the 
negotiations. 

Recommendations: 1. Reduce this proposed supplemental appropriation by 
$126,805 from $2,538,692 to $2,411,887 as shown in 
the following table: 



Temporary Salaries 
Overtime-Miscellaneous 
Mandatory Fringe Benefits 
Other Current Expenses 
Materials and Supplies 
Equipment Purchase 
Services of Other Departments 
DTIS 

DTIS - Citywatch 
City Attorney 
Parking and Traffic 
Purchasing-Reproduction 
DPW-Building Repairs 
DPW- Administration 
Total 







Budget 




Budget Analyst's 


Analyst 


Amount 


Recommended 


Recommended 


Requested 


Amount 


Reductions 


$498,572 


$498,572 


$0 


620,564 


620,564 





86,845 


86,845 





541,570 


541,570 





316,971 


316,971 





71,201 


71,201 





122,416 


122,416 





7,829 


7,829 





15,000 


15,000 





47,724 


47,724 





10,000 


10,000 





75,000 


73,195 


1,805* 


125,000 





125,000** 


$2,538,692 


$2,411,887 


$126,805 



* See Comment No. 5. 
** See Comment No. 6. 



2. Reserve a total of $800,000, including $541,570 from 
Other Current Expenses, $187,229 from Materials and 
Supplies and $71,201 from Equipment Purchase, in 
accordance with Comment Nos. 4 and 7 above. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Finance Committee 
April 11, 2001 Finance Committee 



3. Amend the proposed ordinance to reserve an 
additional $251,000 of previously appropriated FY 
2000-2001 funds for the Department in accordance 
with Comment Nos. 4 and 7 above. 

4. Amend the proposed ordinance to provide for 
retroactive approval of the subject $2,538,692 
supplemental appropriation since the Department has 
already expended or incurred approximately 
$1,838,692 of these expenses, without first obtaining 
appropriation approval from the Board of Supervisors. 

5. Request the Department of Elections to report back 
to the Finance Committee as to the results of the final 
contract renegotiations with Elections Systems and 
Software, Inc. pertaining to any technological, contract 
and fiscal impacts regarding this contract, in 
accordance with Comments No. 4 and 7 above. 

6. Approval of the proposed ordinance, as amended, is 
a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOAED OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 




, Mar-D-'-Dl 02:4!pn From-dapt of elections +4155547S28 T-553 P. 003/003 F-B53 

Attachment 1 

'JPAHTMENT OF ELECTIONS &i Mg^jgB )9 PHILLIP SANCHEZ PARIS 

ry and County of San Francisco \&£ei&&8}S&?£l Acting Director of Elections 



TO: Maureen Singleton 

Budget Analyst's Office 

FROM: Christiane Hayashi 

Department of Elections 

RE: Supplemental Appropriation Request 

DATE: February 28, 2001 



The need for a supplemental appropriation for the Department of Elections has arisen due to 
several factors associated with implementing a new voting technology in the Presidential election 
of November 7, 2000. 

The new system introduced new variables, so that the logistical requirements for a successful 
election were very complex and work intensive to develop the first time. For example, poll workers 
had been accustomed to bring ballots back to City Hall at the end of the night With the new 
system it was necessary to plan and execute pick-up routes throughout the City to pick up the 
large ballot boxes and the heavy ballots. 

The new system also depended on poll worker recruitment and training to ensure sufficient poll 
workers to assist voters. Developing materials for training, training trainers, recruiting and 
scheduling several thousand poll workers for planned training sessions and distributing the larger 
precinct supplies was a critical task that required a relatively high level of staffing. 

The ballot's size contributed substantially to labor costs. Absentee ballots were more time 
consuming to assemble for mailing, and took more time to be prepared for processing through the 
central counting machines. An advantage of the new system also increased costs: new paper 
ballots made it possible to correct ballots that clearly demonstrated voter intent but that could not 
be read by the optical scanner. A significant amount of labor went into remaking approximately 
20,000 ballot cards to be sure that the votes were counted. 

Lack of space for processing ballots also increased costs. Using the small conference rooms of 
the City Hall basement to store heavily loaded mail carts made the extensive ballot sorting needed 
for the canvass of the election immensely difficult The far-flung locations of the several 
operational centers of the department and the size of the ballots and voting machines to be 
transported increased automobile rental costs. 

The popularity of the election also contributed to cost overruns. The Department processed18 
local measures and over 120 local candidates for the November election. The number of 
candidates and issues on the ballot increased the size of the Voter Information Pamphlet, which in 
turn increased translation, printing and mailing costs. An unprecedented number of paid ballot 
arguments constituted 40% of a 300 page Voter Information Pamphlet The number of issues and 
candidates on the ballot also increased the size of the ballot from two cards to three cards, 
substantially increasing printing and handling costs. 

Some of the cost overruns were attributable to contract issues with the vendor of the voting 
system. The Department is currently working to recover additional costs attributable to the • 
contractor. 



21 




.Uar-Or-01 02:41pm Froo-dept of elections +41 55547B29 T-559 P. 002/003 F-E53 

' Department of Elections m ^s^# r ) Phillip s. Paris, Ph.d. 

City and County of San Francisco W^S^^^a£l Acting Director 

Attachment 2 
BUDGETARY JUSTIFICATION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST 

Future Cost Saving Plans 

1. Ballot Processing: Currently, we are searching for a large warehouse facility in 
order to prepare, deliver, and retrieve ballots. By consolidating this process, 
including absentee and provisional ballots, temporary employee costs in terms 
of number needed and overtime will be reduced substantially. 

2. Voting machine delivery and pickup: We are renegotiating with the vendor to 
comply with the terms of the initial contract regarding primary responsibility 
for the delivery and pickup of the Eagle and blue bins. 

3. Precinct Poll setup and closeout We intend to do extensive training of poll 
workers in the setting up and closing of precinct polling sites. By reducing the 
possibilities of inadequate processing at the precinct sites, we also shall reduce 
transportation and temporary worker needs. 

4. Consolidation of precinct voting sites; With Board approval, we plan to recom- 
mend an additional number of consolidated precinct polling sites. By reducing 
the number of single sites, we also shall be able to reduce transportation costs. 

5. Expansion of early voting sites: With Board approval, we plan to recommend 
an extension of the time for early voting, as well as, provision of a number of 
public sites in addition to City Hall. 

A series of one-time costs are important to list here. 

6. No additional acquisition costs for polling booths. 

7. No additional training needs to utilization of optical scan machine. 

8. No additional need for a special projects team to develop and conduct election. 

9. No additional need for DTIS special training. 
10.No additional need for DPW delivery and pickup services. 

3-7-01 



J Dr. Carllon B. CooJlett Plac* - Room 4S, San Frandicc, CA 94102-4634 
Voice (415) 554-4375; Fax (41$) 554-7344; Absentee Far (41S) 554-4372; TDD (415) 554-4386 



w 



PROPOSED FY 01-02 PERSONNEL BUDGET 
DEPARTMENT OF ELECTIONS 



Attachment 3 







FY 00-01 




Reduction 






FY 00-01 


Actual 


FY 01-02 


from FY 00-01 






Budget 


(Projected) 


Request 


Actual 


00100 


Permanent Salaries 


1,009,084 


661,339 


1,313,116 


651,777 


00500 


Temporary Salaries 


850,433 


1,547,472 


900,000 


(647,472) 


00901 


Premium Pay 


8,000 


9,000 


10,000 


1,000 


01101 


Overtime 


199,436 


730,000 


200,000 


(530,000) 




Total 


2,066,953 


2,947,811 


2,423,116 


(524,695) 



23 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 2 - File 01-0532 

Note: This was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of April 4, 2001. 



Department: 



Item: 



Project Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Required Match: 
Description: 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 
Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) 

Resolution approving the Cooperative Agreement 
between the City and County of San Francisco and 
the State of California Department of 
Transportation (Caltrans) for the construction and 
financing of a bicycle overcrossing and at-grade 
pedestrian/bicycle path widening adjacent to 
Highway 101 at Cesar Chavez Street in San 
Francisco and directing and ratifying certain 
actions in connection with this Resolution. 

$3,349,806 

$570,000 - State Flexible Congestion Relief 
$3.986.000 - State Transportation Improvement Program 
$4,556,000 - Total (See Comment No. 1) 

None 

In March of 1997, the Board of Supervisors 
authorized the Department of Parking and Traffic 
(DPT) to apply for, accept and expend up to 
$570,000 in State Flexible Congestion Relief funds 
for the planning and design of a bicycle bridge on 
Cesar Chavez Street adjacent to Highway 101 (File 
192-97-3). In December of 1999, the Board of 
Supervisors authorized DPT to accept and expend 
up to $3,986,000 in State Transportation 
Improvement Program (STIP) funds in connection 
with the construction of Cesar Chavez Street 
improvements, including the construction of 
bicycle, pedestrian and traffic circulation 
improvements (File 99-2192). DPT has therefore 
received authorization from the Board of 
Supervisors for a total of up to $4,556,000 of State 
funds to plan, design and construct the proposed 
bicycle and pedestrian improvements on Cesar 
Chavez Street, adjacent to Highway 101. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

The proposed resolution would approve a 
Cooperative Agreement between the City, through 
DPW, and Caltrans for the construction and 
financing of a bicycle overcrossing and an 
expansion of an at-grade pedestrian and bicycle 
path along Cesar Chavez Street, within the 
Caltrans Highway 101 right-of-way. 

Specifically, the proposed project would involve the 
construction of an approximately 300 foot long and 
12 foot wide bicycle overcrossing along the north 
side of Cesar Chavez Street between Vermont 
Street and Portrero Avenue. This bicycle 
overcrossing would include the addition of lighting 
fixtures and wire mesh fencing along both sides of 
the overcrossing. In addition, the proposed project 
includes the widening to approximately 12 feet of 
an existing eight foot wide bicycle and pedestrian 
path on the opposite, south side of Cesar Chavez 
Street, between Potrero Avenue and Vermont 
Street. The proposed project would extend under 
Highway 101 in order to provide a safer path for 
bicyclists and pedestrians who want to travel east 
and westbound along Cesar Chavez Street. 

In addition, as part of the Art Commission's Art 
Enrichment Program, the proposed project will 
include the construction of a metal sculpture 
depicting Quetzalcoatl, a feathered serpent god of 
air and water which will be placed at the 
northeastern entrance to the bicycle overcrossing, 
near the northbound Highway 101 on-ramp. This 
sculpture, which was designed and constructed by 
the neighborhood artist, Mr. Pepe Ozan, will be 
located eight feet above the ground and will span 
over and around the bicycle and pedestrian path, 
forming an entranceway portal. 

Under the proposed Cooperative Agreement, DPW 
would be responsible for planning, designing and 
constructing the proposed bicycle, pedestrian and 
transit improvements. In addition, the City would 
be responsible for maintaining the lighting fixtures, 
including electrical and energy costs. Caltrans 



BOAED OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



would be responsible for tbe ongoing maintenance 
of the remainder of tbe improvements. 



Budget: Planning $175,000 

Design 347,100 

Construction 2,293,369 

Construction Contingency (10%) 229,337 

Construction Support 305.000 

Total $3,349,806 

- - The Attachment, provided by Ms. Lesley Wong of 

DPW provides additional budget details. As shown 
in the Attachment, DPW, DPT, the Planning 
Department, Human Rights Commission and Arts 
Commission staff, with the assistance from two 
consultants will provide the Planning, Design and 
Construction Support for this project. Ms. Wong 
advises that the two consultants, (1) Biggs Cardosa 
Associates and (2) AGS- Geotechnical Consultants 
were selected from a list of as-needed consultants, 
who are selected each year by DPW through a 
request for proposal process. 

As shown in the Attachment, $14,000 for the Art 
Enrichment portion of the project is included as 
part of the Design costs, under the Arts 
Commission. As discussed in the Description above, 
the Art Commission's Art Enrichment project will 
include the construction of a metal sculpture 
depicting Quetzalcoatl, a feathered serpent -od of 
air and water which will be placed at the 
northeastern entrance to the bicycle overcrossing. 
Ms. Wong advises that the $14,000 Art Enrichment 
project has been determined to be eligible for 
funding with the subject $3,986,000 of STIP funds. 

Comments: 1. As discussed above, DPT has received 

authorization for a total of up to $4,556,000 of 
State funds to plan, design and construct the 
proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements On 
Cesar Chavez Street, adjacent to Highway 101. 
However, as shown in the above budget, the total 
projected cost of the proposed project is $3,349,806 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
26 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

or $1,206,194 less than the up to $4,556,000 of 
grant funds authorized for this project. 

According to Ms. Tina Olson of DPW, these State 
grant funds are received by the City on a 
reimbursement basis, such that the City will only 
receive the amount of funds that are actually 
expended on this project. Mr. Ed Stewart of the 
County Transportation Authority advises that any 
of the up to $4,556,000 of State funds remaining at 
the completion of the project, that are not spent for 
this project, would not be available for use by the 
City for any other City project, but instead would 
be reallocated by the State. 

2. Ms. Wong advises that, in September of 2000, 
the proposed bicycle and pedestrian project was 
advertised under DPW's competitive bidding 
process. According to Ms. Wong, both of the bids 
that were received were rejected because these bids 
were significantly higher than DPWs estimates. 
The project was re-advertised in December of 2000. 
Based on the second bidding process, DPW received 
two bids, one from Mitchell Engineering for 
$2,503,442 and one from Valentine Corporation for 
$2,293,369. Ms. Wong advises that DPW awarded 
the contract to Valentine Corporation, the low 
bidder, and a notice to proceed with the 
construction work was issued to Valentine 
Corporation on March 12, 2001. 

3. According to Ms. Wong, Caltrans requires that 
the subject Cooperative Agreement be approved by 
the Board of Supervisors before Caltrans will issue 
an encroachment permit for the proposed 
construction work. According to Ms. Wong, the 
contractor, Valentine Corporation, cannot begin 
their construction work within the Highway 101 
right-of-way until the contractor receives this 
encroachment permit from Caltrans. 

Ms. Wong advises that once Caltrans issues the 
encroachment permit to the contractor, the 
construction will begin. According to Ms. Wong, 
construction is anticipated to begin by mid-April of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

2001 and to be completed in approximately one 
year, or by the Spring of 2002. 

4. The proposed Cooperative Agreement states that 
the City shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless 
the State from all project claims against the State 
and the payment or performance bond by 
contractors and all other claimants and the 
proposed Cooperative Agreement also provides for 
reciprocal City and State indemnifications 
regarding future claims. Mr. John Malamut of the 
- - City Attorney's Office advises that he has reviewed 

the indemnification provisions in the subject 
Cooperative Agreement and that these provisions 
are appropriate for the proposed project. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment 



BUDGET DETAILS 



Phase 




|Amount 




Planning 






$175,493.00 




DPW - Electrical 


$1,000.00 




DPW- Sts & Hwys 


$16,500.00 




Biggs Cardosa Associates 


$39,000.00 






AGS - Geotechnical Consultants 


$50,690.00 




DPT - Project Management 


$50,000.00 




DPT Traffic 


$10,000.00 




Planning Department - Fees 


$78.00 




Planning Department - Arch Record Search 


$225.00 




BCM - Survey 


$8,000.00 










Design 






$347,100.00 




DPW - Electrical 


$30,000.00 




DPW - Sts & Hwys' 


$60,800.00 




DPW - Landscape Architecture 


$2,000.00 




DPW - Structural 


$63,100.00 




DPW - Project Development 


$1,000.00 




DPW - QA/AC 


$2,500.00 




DPW - Public Affairs 


$1,500.00 




DPW -BCM 


$10,700.00 




BCM - Contract Prep 


$10,000.00 




DPT - Project Management 


$10,000.00 




DPT Traffic 


$30,000.00 




Biggs Cardosa Associates 


$109,000.00 




HRC 


$2,500.00 




Arts Commission 


S14,000.00 










Total: 




$522,593.00 


I 



Construction 




$2,293,369.00 




ConstructionContingency 




$229,337 




Construction Support 




$305,000.00 




DPW - Electrical 


S6.000.00 






DPW - Sts & Hwys 


$40,000.00 




DPW - Structural 


$1,400.00 




Biggs Cardosa Associates 


$44,000.00 




DPW -BCM 


$153,600.00 




DPT - Project Management 


S50.000.00 




DPT - Traffic 


$10,000.00 








Total: 




S2,827,705.90 





Total 



$3,349,806 



29 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 3 - File 01-0529 

Item: Ordinance amending Chapter 16, Article 1 of the Administrative 

Code by adding Section 16.5 to create an official holiday for March 
31 st of each year, the birthday of Cesar Chavez. 

Description: The proposed ordinance provides that a) March 31 st shall be a 
holiday, known as "Cesar Chavez Day"; and, b) that such a paid 
holiday shall be created for "represented employees of the City and 
County of San Francisco only to the extent allowed by ratified 
Memoranda of Understanding between the City and the affected 
- recognized employee organizations". Similarly, for City employees 
whose -compensation is subject to the provisions of Section A 8.409 
of the Charter, in classes not represented by an employee 
organization, such a paid holiday would have to be included in the 
annual ordinance fixing compensation for such employees. 

According to Ms. Molly Stump, Deputy City Attorney, in order for 
employees to get a paid City holiday, authorization must be 
specified in Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) approved by the 
Board of Supervisors. None of the City's MOUs currently list March 
31st as a paid holiday. Most MOUs, however, authorize paid 
holidays for "any day declared to be a holiday by proclamation of 
the Mayor after such day has heretofore been declared a holiday by 
the Governor of the State of California, or the President of the 
United States" or similar language. Ms. Stump adds that the 
Governor signed legislation in 1995 1 proclaiming the date of March 
31 st as a holiday, subject to approval by individual Cities and 
Counties. Therefore, if the Board of Supervisors designates March 
31 st as a holiday by approving the proposed ordinance, the Mayor 
has the power to create such a paid holiday for most 2 represented 
City employees by issuing a proclamation. In the absence of such a 
proclamation, March 31st could be negotiated into the MOUs as a 
paid holiday, subject to approval by the Mayor and the Board of 
Supervisors. 

According to Ms. Stump, as presently written, the proposed 
ordinance does not ensure a paid holiday (pending a proclamation 
by the Mayor or MOU approvals) should the date of March 31 st fall 
on either a Saturday or Sunday. Ms. Stump adds that the sponsor 



1 Subsequent legislation inserted the State Holiday of March 31" as a paid holiday for State 
employees effective August of 2000. 

2 Ms. Stump states that the largest MOU for represented employees without such a provision 
includes the Transit Operators employed by MUNI. 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

30 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



of the legislation may consider an amendment to the proposed 
ordinance to ensure a paid holiday for City employees if March 31 st 
falls on a Saturday or Sunday. 

As previously reported to the Finance Committee for a hearing on 
this matter on March 28, 2001 (File 01-0507) the fiscal impact of 
adding one additional official City holiday would result from 
increased expenditure requirements resulting from certain City 
employees, who staff functions including public safety (Fire and 
Police), Public Health (i.e. San Francisco General Hospital and 
Laguna Honda Hospital) Emergency Communications, Department 
of Public Works (DPW) and the Municipal Railway (MUNI). Such 
departments operate on a 24 hour per day and/or seven day per 
week basis and certain of their employees must be paid Holiday 
Pay, at overtime rates, when they work on an official City holiday. 

The attachment to this report is an analysis of estimated increased 
salary and fringe benefit costs prepared by the Controller's Office. 
The Controller's analysis results in an estimate of total increased 
annual City-wide out-of-pocket expenditures of $4,344,718 at 
current rates of pay. Of this total, the estimated increased annual 
cost to the General Fund is $3,000,276. 

The Controller's estimate employs the following assumptions: 

• The estimate is based on the total salary budget for 
departments with primarily 24 hour per day and seven 
day per week operations. An estimated 15,953 full 
time equivalent positions were included in the 
Controller analysis. Not all staff in these departments 
are required to work on a holiday, but some staff of 
other operations (e.g. Water, Airport) would be 
required to work on a holiday but these latter two 
departments were not included in the Controller's 
analysis. The Controller believes that overall these 
factors would offset one another. 

• The cost of one holiday may vary depending on which 
day of the week that the holiday is observed. For 
example, Muni service levels are different on New 
Year's Day and Veteran's Day when more businesses 
are open. 

• Salary amounts are based on FY 2001-2002 base 
budget amounts and exclude premiums, overtime, and 
holiday pay. 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 
31 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 4, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

• Only Fringe benefits that are based on wages 
(retirement, social security, unemployment) would be 
added to the cost. Health benefits are not included. 
The fringe benefit rates used are based on the FY 
2001-2002 base budget amount. 

Comment: The Controller's estimate does not consider the fiscal impact 
pertaining to the cost of lost productivity for personnel who are not 
required to staff functions on a 24 hour per day and/or seven day 
per week basis, but who would receive one additional holiday. In 
addition to the 15,953 full time equivalent positions used by the 
Controller in 24-hour day seven days per week operations, the City 
has an~additional 12,707 full time equivalent positions (FTEs) for a 
total of 28,660 FTEs. 

The estimated annual cost of lost productivity for the additional 
12,707 positions, as a result of adding one additional holiday, is 
$2,023,506 (the average pay per day at straight time rates for these 
positions) including $916,400 to the General Fund based on known 
2001-2002 rates of pay and fringe benefits. 

When including all 28,660 City positions, the Budget Analyst 
estimates the total fiscal impact of adding one additional holiday 
would cost the City $6,368,224 annually including $4,344,718 for 
those personnel who would be required to work on a holiday at 
overtime rates and $2,023,506 from lost productivity for those 
personnel who receive one additional holiday. Of this total amount 
of $6,368,224, $3,916,676 annually would represent the cost to the 
General Fund including $3,000,276 for those personnel who would 
be required to work on a holiday at overtime rates and $916,400 
from lost productivity. 



Recommendation: 



Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the Board 
of Supervisors. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 



-I 



Attachment 



Estimated Impact of One Holiday 



! 


W^-^^^^S:] 




;Genera;Fund H 




I'Departrne'rit-.';? 


•: ;- : ' :; Ti:!e : -'- : 'V> ; "'" : " 








DPT 


Muni 




- 


216,706,108 


DPW 


DPW (Street & Sewer Repair only) 


1,774,460 


6,981,896 


ECD 


Emergency Communications 




8,989,769 


9,662,458 


FIR 


Fire 




116,959,349 


125,888,121 


HCN 


Community Health Network 




264,632,270 


269,460,163 


HPH 


Public Health 




61,939,760 


80,010,525 


POL 


Police 




152,392,003 


177,210,119 


SHF 


Sheriff 




41,643,113 


47,835.626 


Total Salaries 






648,330,724 


933,755,016 




Estimated OT to fill behind one 


day 


2,664,373 


3,837,349 




Fringes 




335.903 


507,369 




Total 




3,000,276 


4,344,718 



Notes: 

(1) This high level estimate assumes that shifts regularly scheduled at straight time will have to be paid at time 
and one half to fill behind the regularly scheduled employees who are observing the new holiday. 

(2) This estimate Is based on the total salary budget for departments with primarily 24 hour/7 day operations. 
Not all staff in these departments Is required to work on a holiday, but some staff of other operations 
(e.g. Water, Airport) would be required. We have assumed that these would roughly offset each other. 

(3) The cost of one holiday may vary depending on the service level being provided. For example, Muni 
service levels are different on New Year's Day and than it is on Veterans Day when more businesses are open. 

(4) This estimate does not consider the cost of lost productivity for non-essential personnel. 

(5) Salary amounts are the FY 2002 base budget amounts and exclude premiums, overtime, and holiday pay. 

(6) Fringe benefits are those based on wages (retirement, social security, unemployment). The rate used 
Is based on the FY 2002 base budget amount. 



Source: Controller's Office; 3/22/01 



33 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 4 - File 01-0398 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Recreation and Park Department (RPD) 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds for the 
Recreation and Park Department, for the Fiscal Year 
2000-2001 budget, in the amount of $1,214,826 to allow 
the Department to hire staff to manage, design and 
oversee construction of those facilities anticipated in the 
Department's Capital Plan. 

$1,214,826 

Proceeds from the General Obligation Neighborhood 
Recreation and Park Facilities Improvement Bonds 2000, 
previously appropriated and placed on reserve by the 
Board of Supervisors. The Neighborhood Recreation and 
Park Facilities Improvement Bonds 2000, which 
authorized $110,000,000 in General Obligation Bonds, 
were approved as Proposition A by the voters in March of 
2000. 

The Recreation and Park Department (RPD), in its 
budget for Fiscal Year 2000-2001, requested funding for 
Salaries for 16 new positions to staff a reorganized 
Capital Division (previously referred to as the RPD 
Planning Division), which would be charged with 
planning, directing and overseeing construction of RPD's 
$400 million Capital Plan. The Board of Supervisors 
approved all of the 16 new positions, but placed on 
reserve $1,214,826 in Salaries to fund all 16 positions, 
pending submission to the Board of Supervisors of the 
following information by RPD: 

• A justification for the proposed 16 new positions, 
including an analysis that compares the cost and 
effectiveness of having RPD oversee and manage its 
own capital projects with the cost and effectiveness of 
having of the Department of Public Works (DPW) 
oversee such capital projects, as has been customarily 
done in the past. Proposition C, which extended the 
Park Recreation and Open Space Fund by 30 years 
and was approved by voters in March of 2000, 
authorized RPD such oversight over its capital 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
34 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



projects, as discussed below. The information to be 
provided to the Board of Supervisors was to ensure 
that there would not be any material duplication of 
efforts between the functions of RPD's new Capital 
Division and similar functions previously under the 
responsibility of DPW. In addition, this analysis was to 
address existing RPD employees, who previously 
provided a function similar to the 16 new positions to 
be assigned to the Capital Division. 

A cost-benefit analysis that compares the cost of RPD 
overseeing its own Capital Plan with the cost of having 
DPW oversee RPD's Capital Plan. 

A budget for identifying overhead costs that would be 
incurred as a result of establishing the new Capital 
Division, such as any costs for increased space 
requirements, furnishing, computer equipment and 
other related costs. 



RPD's Capital Plan 

RPD's 10-year Capital Plan discussed below, outlines 
RPD's plans to renovate all of San Francisco's 
Neighborhood Park facilities. The goal of the program is 
to renovate, restore and/or build new facilities in order to 
return the City's 227 parks and recreation facilities to 
their original, or an improved, condition and to comply 
with the City's current Building Codes. Mr. Gary Hoy, 
Capital Program Manager for RPD, advises that the 
Capital Plan consists of all of San Francisco's 227 
Neighborhood Park facilities that will be rehabilitated in 
at least 227 separate projects (many facilities will require 
more than one project). All the facilities currently 
operated by Recreation and Park are included in the 
RPD's 10-year Capital Plan. Additional facilities will be 
added as new acquisitions are completed. Examples of 
such acquisitions include current negotiations by RPD to 
purchase Hawk Hill in Supervisorial District No. 7 and 
Esprit Park in Supervisorial District No. 10, which will be 
acquired with a combination of Park Recreation and Open 
Space Fund monies and proceeds from the Neighborhood 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Recreation and Park Facilities Improvement Bonds 2000, 
according to Mr. Hoy. 

Attachment I, provided by RPD, explains the criteria RPD 
uses to select projects, to determine which projects will be 
completed first and to ensure that project funds are 
distributed equitably throughout the City. According to 
Mr. Hoy, RPD will provide to the Finance Committee at 
its meeting of April 11, 2001 a list of all Neighborhood 
Park facilities to be renovated as part of RPD's 10-year 
Capital Plan, grouped by Supervisorial District. The 
Budget Analyst requested that RPD provide a listing of 
all projects that have been funded to date, and/or are 
expected to begin during Fiscal Year 2000-2001 and Fiscal 
Year 2001-2002, including, for each project, a brief 
description, the location, total cost, and estimated 
commencement and completion dates. However, at this 
point in time, RPD was unable to readily provide such a 
document given the large number of projects that would 
have been included in the list (approximately 115 to 193 
projects). Mr. Hoy states in Attachment I that, "the 
Capital Plan is not 'static' and is meant to be a 'road map' 
guiding the direction of the Capital Program for the next 
10 years." Mr. Hoy advises that one of the main 
responsibilities of the proposed 16 new employees would 
be to determine for each of the facilities included in the 
Capital Plan what kind of renovation work is necessary, a 
project budget and a project schedule. 

The Budget Analyst notes that all of the projects in RPD's 
Capital Plan are subject to review and appropriation 
approval by the Board of Supervisors. The subject 
requested release of reserved funds relates only to RPD's 
Salaries, presently on reserve for the 16 new positions, in 
connection with the planning, directing and overseeing of 
RPD's Capital Plan. 

According to Mr. Hoy, the total cost of RPD 's Capital 
Plan is estimated to be $400 million over the ten-year 
period, beginning July 1, 2000 and ending July 1, 2010. 
Mr. Hoy advises that this $400 million Capital Plan will 
be funded by: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



a) $110,000,000 in General Obligation Bonds, known as 
the Neighborhood Recreation and Park Facilities 
Improvement Bonds 2000, approved as Proposition A 
by the voters in March of 2000, to provide for the 
acquisition, construction and/or reconstruction of 
neighborhood recreation and park facilities and 
properties, subject to appropriation approval by the 
Board of Supervisors; 

b) Approximately $140 million in Park, Recreation and 
Open Space Funds as permitted by Charter Section 
16.107, subject to appropriation approval by the Board 
of Supervisors; 1 

c) Approximately $100 million in grant funds subject to 
approval by the Board of Supervisors to be realized at 
an average rate of $10 million annually during the 10- 
year Capital Program, according to Mr. Hoy (See 
Comment No. 3). 

d) Approximately $50 million in private donor and 
foundation support, to be realized at an average rate of 
$5 million annually during the 10-year Capital 
Program, according to Mr. Hoy. All gifts in excess of 
$10,000 are subject to acceptance approval by the 
Board of Supervisors. 

Mr. Hoy advises that RPD's 10-year Capital Plan has 
increased significantly the number of capital projects 
executed by RPD annually. Mr. Hoy advises that since 
1993, working through DPW and using Park Recreation 
and Open Space Funds, RPD has completed 
approximately $3.75 million per year in capital projects. 
According to Mr. Hoy, to meet the requirements of RPD's 
10-year Capital Plan, RPD will need to complete 
approximately $40 million in capital projects annually. 



1 Under Charter Section 16.107, for the Park, Recreation and Open Space Fund, the City assesses an 
annual property tax of two and one-half cents ($0,025) for each $100 of assessed valuation. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

37 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

RPD's Capital Division 



Mr. Hoy advises that RPD requested the subject 16 new 
positions in order to manage the significant increase in 
capital projects overseen by RPD, as discussed above. Mr. 
Hoy advises that RPD is also proposing to increase its 
staffing in the Capital Division to provide design services 
for some projects in response to the authority granted to 
RPD through the Charter Amendment of Proposition C, 
which extended the Park Recreation and Open Space 
Fund by 30 years and was passed by voters in March 
2000. Proposition C states that, for capital projects, the 
Recreation and Park Commission would "...have the 
authority to prepare and approve the plans, specifications 
and estimates for all contracts and orders, and to award, 
execute and manage all contracts and orders, for capital 
projects on real property under its jurisdiction or 
management." Mr. Hoy advises that, previously, such 
authority was vested in the Department of Public Works 
under the City Administrator by Charter Section 3.104. 
The Charter Amendment also mandated that RPD 
prepare a 5-year Capital Plan by December 1, 2000, Mr. 
Hoy advises RPD instead completed a 10-year Capital 
Plan on May 18, 2000, which also met the requirement of 
a 5-year Capital Plan, as stipulated by Proposition C. 

According to Mr. Hoy, the expanded Capital Division, 
formerly referred to as the RPD Planning Division, would 
consist of a total of 26 positions, including 9 existing RPD 
positions, the 16 new positions proposed to be funded with 
the subject requested release of reserved funds, and one 
Project Manager rV position (Classification 5508) 
approved and funded in RPD's Fiscal Year 2000-2001 
budget. Funding for this one Project Manager IV position 
was not placed on reserve in order to provide RPD a 
Capital Program Manager to oversee the Capital Division 
and plan for its expansion. Attachment II provided by 
RPD explains the responsibilities of the expanded Capital 
Division. 

According to Mr. Hoy, the main responsibility of the 
Capital Division is to oversee the planning, financing, and 
fieldwork required for RPD's $400 million Capital Plan. 
For each capital project, the Capital Division prepares a 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
38 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 






Project Plan, which defines the scope of work, the 
schedule, milestones, the completion dates and the project 
budget. Mr. Hoy advises that in creating this Project 
Plan, RPD staff seek community input and consensus on 
capital improvements for the City's recreation and park 
facilities. Following the communities' input and advice, 
RPD staff define the scope of capital improvements, 
determine the impacts to the project from various issues 
(i.e. topography, soils, hazardous materials, relocation, 
and /or temporary facilities). Mr. Hoy advises that the 
Project Plan would serve as the document governing 
design and construction throughout each project. Mr. Hoy 
advises that in the past, RPD, in conjunction with DPW, 
was charged with creating such Project Plans. The 
Capital Division would also negotiate to have DPW and/or 
its consultants to complete the project design. DPW will 
remain responsible for management of all formal 
competitive bidding processes and the award of the design 
and construction projects. However, since March 2000 
when Proposition C gave authority to RPD to fill such 
functions directly, RPD's Capital Division has begun to 
perform some of these duties, according to Mr. Hoy. 
Attachment II, provided by RPD, explains when DPW 
would be responsible for awarding construction contracts 
that fall under RPD's Capital Plan. 

RPD's Response to the Board of Supervisors' Request for 
Additional Information Related to the Reserved Funds 

Attachment III, provided by RPD contains, RPD's 
response to the information requested by the Board of 
Supervisors during the budget review process for Fiscal 
Year 2000-2001 about the potential for RPD's Capital 
Division to duplicate responsibilities previously handled 
by DPW. As stated in Attachment III, Mr. Hoy advises 
that: 

"The Recreation and Park Department's Capital 
Division Team will not duplicate the functions of 
DPW. The magnitude in numbers and value of 
capital projects changed dramatically with the 
passage of the Neighborhood Parks Bond of $110 
million... That bond is one quarter of the total 
capital program of $400 million. In addition to the 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
39 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



bond, $140 million of Park Recreation and Open 
Space Funds is committed to the program with the 
remaining funds to be secured by an aggressive 
grant and philanthropy effort [$100 million from 
Federal and State grants and $50 million from 
private donors]. The capital program will require 
the addition of staff who are responsible for the 
management, funding, definition and direction of 
those improvements. If DPW were to oversee RPD's 
Capital Plan, rather than RPD, DPW would also 
need to recruit additional staff in order to 
perform these functions." 

Ms. Tina Olson of DPW agrees that, if DPW were 
responsible for overseeing RPD's $400 million Capital 
Plan, DPW would also be required to hire a similar 
number of additional staff. Ms. Olson advises that DPW 
supports the creation of RPD's expanded Capital Division 
and will continue to work closely with RPD in 
implementing RPD's Capital Plan. RPD and DPW 
currently have a joint committee, which was required 
under the Proposition C Park Recreation and Open Space 
Fund approved in March of 2000, and which meets 
monthly to discuss and monitor implementation of RPD's 
Capital Plan (see Comment No. 6 below). 

Mr. Hoy further states: 

"The Recreation and Park Department has worked 
with DPW for the past year to prepare a well- 
developed plan. Those efforts are apparent in the 
language of Proposition C and in the functional 
organization chart [shown in Attachment rV, 
provided by RPD]. As required by Proposition C, 
the policies and procedures governing the 
implementation of capital projects will be 
established by a committee formed by DPW and 
RPD. These will be based on procedures already in 
place at DPW, in conformance with appropriate 
chapters of the City's Administrative Code. The 
Recreation and Park Department and DPW meet 
monthly to discuss policies, procedures and 
activities." 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



In Attachment III, Mr. Hoy states that RPD expects that 
the costs of RPD overseeing its own capital projects would 
be either equal to or lower than having DPW oversee 
RPD's projects. However, the Budget Analyst notes that 
RPD has not completed a formal cost comparison between 
the two departments, as was requested by the Board of 
Supervisors during tbe budget review process for Fiscal 
Year 2000-2001. Mr. Hoy advises that such a comparison 
is difficult, due to differences in the ways each 
department bills costs to projects, as stated in Attachment 
III. Mr. Hoy further advises, as stated previously, that if 
DPW were to oversee RPD's $400 million Capital Plan, 
DPW would also need to recruit additional staff in order 
to manage the dramatic increase in capital projects to be 
completed by RPD. 

A budget for $1,110,946 of the requested release of 
$1,214,826 in reserved funds for the 16 new positions for 
Fiscal Year 2000-2001 is as follows (see Comment No. 1): 



Class 


Position 


Biweekly 
Salary 
Step 1 


Biweekly 
Salary 
Step 5 


#of 
Pos. 


Annualized 

Salary 
(Step 5) 


Total 

Annualized 

Salary 

(Step 5) 


1426 


Sr. Clerk Typist . 


$1,355 


$1,682 


2 


$43,900 


$87,800 


1632 


Sr. Account Clerk 


1,474 


1,831 


1 


47,789 


47,789 


1652 


Sr. Accountant 


1,654 


2,038 


1 


53,192 53,192 


1820 


Jr. Administrative Analyst 


1,460 


1,814 


1 


47,345 


47,345 


1823 


Sr. Administrative Analyst 


2,161 


2,666 


2 


69,582 


139,165 


1824 


Principal Admin. Analyst 


2,527 


3,117 


1 


81,354 


81,354 


1654 


Principal Accountant 


2,009 


2,478 


1 


64,676 


64,676 


5283 


Planner V 


3,056 


3,769 


1 


98,371 


98,371 


5293 


Planner IV 


2,577 


3,178 


2 


82,946 


165,892 


5272 


Assist. Landscape 
Architect 


2,303 


2,841 


2 


74,150 


148,300 


5275 


Sr. Landscape Architect 


3,087 


3,807 


1 


99,363 


99,363 


6331 


Building Inspector 


2,412 2,977 1 


77,700 


77,700 




Subtotal Salaries 


16 




$1,110,946 



Annual Salary and Mandatory Fringe Benefit costs of the 
proposed 16 staff members would be $1,399,792, including 
$1,110,946 in Salaries and $288,846 in Mandatory Fringe 
Benefits, calculated at 26 percent of Salaries, or a total 
cost for Salaries and Fringe Benefits of $1,399,792. The 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
41 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



Mandatory Fringe Benefit costs were previously 
appropriated by the Board of Supervisors without reserve. 
Comment No. 4 below contains an estimated budget for 
annual operating and one-time start up costs for the 
proposed expanded Capital Division. 

1. Mr. Hoy advises that RPD plans to hire the 16 positions 
to be funded by the requested release of reserved funds by 
May 7, 2001. However, the Budget Analyst believes May 
23, 2001 to be a more realistic hiring date. Using a May 
23, 2001 hiring date, the proposed 16 new positions would 
only be hired for three pay periods during Fiscal Year 
2000-2001. As shown in the budget below, the total salary 
cost of hiring the 16 new positions for three pay periods 
would be $127,695. Therefore, the proposed release of 
reserved funds should be reduced by $1,087,131, from 
$1,214,826 to $127,695, as shown in the table on the 
following page. 



Class 


Position 


# of 
Pos. 


FTE 


Salary 

For 3 Pay 

Periods 


1426 


Sr. Clerk Typist 


2 


0.30 


$10,092 


1632 


Sr. Account Clerk 


1 


0.15 


5,493 


1652 


Sr. Accountant 


1 


0.15 


6,114 


1820 


Jr. Administrative Analyst 


1 


0.15 


5,442 


1823 


Sr. Administrative Analyst 


2 


0.30 


15,996 


1824 


Principal Admin. Analyst 


1 


0.15 


9,351 


1654 


Principal Accountant 


1 


0.15 


7,434 


5283 


Planner V 


1 


0.15 


11,307 


5293 


Planner IV 


2 


0.30 


19,068 


5272 


Assistant Landscape Architect 


2 


0.30 


17,046 


5275 


Sr. Landscape Architect 


1 


0.15 


11,421 


6331 


Building Inspector 


1 


0.15 


8,931 




Subtotal Salaries 


16 


2.40 


$127,695 



In addition, the Budget Analyst recommends that the 
Board of Supervisors request the Controller to close out 
the $1,087,131 balance in reserved bond funds 
($1,214,826 in reserved funds less $127,695) to be 
available for future appropriation to Capital Improvement 
Projects. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

42 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



2. According to Mr. Hoy, RPD plans to request from the 
Mayor's Office and the Department of Human Resources 
(DHR) permission to reclassify eight of the 16 new 
positions now being requested for release from reserved 
funds in order to better meet the expanded Capital 
Division's needs, as stated in Attachment P7, provided by 
RPD. Therefore, RPD is already planning to reclassify 
positions before funding for the originally approved 
positions has been approved by the Board of Supervisors. 
The Budget Analyst notes that the reclassified positions 
would increase the estimated annual cost of the 16 new 
positions in Salaries and Mandatory Fringe Benefits by 
$155,025, from $1,399,792 to $1,554,817. Approval of the 
reclassified positions and necessary additional funding 
would be subject to future appropriation approval by the 
Mayor and the Board of Supervisors. Given that RPD is 
planning to reclassify eight of the 16 new positions, before 
the Board of Supervisors has even released the funding 
for the 16 new positions now being requested, and due to 
the estimated increased annual costs of $155,025 that 
would result from such eight reclassifications, the Budget 
Analyst considers approval of the proposed release of 
reserved funds to be a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. Attachment V, provided by RPD, contains a 
job description for each of the 26 positions in the proposed 
expanded Capital Division, including 10 existing positions 
and the 16 new positions. As noted above, RPD has 
proposed to reclassify eight of the 16 new positions. 

3. The Budget Analyst notes that approximately $150 
million, or 37.5 percent, of RPD's $400 million Capital 
Plan will be funded by future Federal and State grants 
($100 million) and private and foundation donations (S50 
million), which have not yet been secured. The Budget 
Analyst questions the certainty of RPD's ability to secure 
such funds, and whether such funds are will be made 
available by the applicable government and philanthropic 
agencies. Attachment VI, provided by RPD, contains a list 
of Federal, State and philanthropic funding which RPD 
expects to be available in future years. However, RPD was 
unable to provide the formula that will be used by funding 
agencies to distribute such funds, in order to estimate the 
amount of funding that could be realized RPD. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

43 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



As stated previously, RPD expects to realize 
approximately $10 million annually, or $100 milli on in 
total, in State and Federal grant funds for the 10-year 
duration of the Capital Plan. However, as a comparison, 
the Department of Public Works (DPW) only realizes 
approximately $4 million annually from Federal and 
State grants for transportation-related improvements 
(excluding additional funding provided for earthquake 
damage related to the Loma Prieta earthquake), 
according to Ms. Olson of DPW. In addition, according to 
Mr. Edward Stewart of the Transportation Authority, the 
City as a whole receives an average of $20 to $25 million 
annually for transportation improvements from Federal 
and State grants. 

Mr. Hoy advises that if RPD is unable to secure the 
anticipated $100 million in Federal and State grants and 
the $50 million in donations, RPD will be required to 
reduce the scope of its Capital Plan and/or find additional 
funding sources. If RPD were to reduce the scope of its 
Capital Plan, Mr. Hoy advises that RPD would prioritize 
projects using the process described in Attachment I, 
provided by RPD. Given that RPD has not yet secured 
this $150 million in State and Federal grants ($100 
million) and private and foundation donations ($50 
million), the Budget Analyst considers approval of the 
proposed release of reserved funds to be a policy matter 
for the Board of Supervisors. 

4. As shown in the budget on the following page, 
estimated annual operating costs for the proposed 
expanded Capital Division would be $1,641,629, 
including $1,110,946 in annual Salaries for subject 16 
positions, $288,846 in Mandatory Fringe Benefits, and 
$241,837 in other Operating Expenses, excluding the 
additional $155,025 annually for the positions to be 
reclassified. In addition, the proposed expanded Capital 
Division would require an estimated $110,800 in one-time 
start-up costs. Mr. Hoy advises that all operating and 
start-up costs would be funded with proceeds from the 
Neighborhood Recreation and Park Facilities 
Improvement General Obligation Bonds, approved by 
voters in March of 2000. Funding for the $1,399,792 in 
Salaries and Mandatory Fringe Benefits is included in 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
44 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



RPD's budget request for Fiscal Year 2001-2002, 
according to Mr. Hoy. Funding for other operating costs of 
$241,837 and the one-time start-up costs of $110,800 for 
the remainder of the current Fiscal Year 2000-2001 would 
be funded with a pending supplemental appropriation 
from the Recreation and Park Facilities Improvement 
General Obligation Bonds, due to come before the Board 
of Supervisors for appropriation approval in April or May 
of 2001. 



Estimated Budget for Proposed 


- . 


Expanded Capital Division 


-Amount 


Estimated Annual Costs 




Personnel 


Salaries (16.0 FTE - See Budget Above) 


$1,110,946 


Fringe Benefits (@ 26 percent) 


288.846 


Subtotal Personnel 


$1,399,792 


Rent (See Comment No. 5) 




5,000 sq. ft @ $9,583 per month or $1.92 monthly per square 


115,000 


foot 




Utilities 


10,000 


Materials & Supplies 


35,000 


Miscellaneous (Copiers, Fax Machines, Printing, Photographs) 


10,000 


Reproduction 


20,000 


Work Orders to Other City Departments 


34,955 


(Such as the Dept. of Telecommunications and Information 




Services and the Controller for e-mail, FAMIS, network 




support, and telephone systems.) 




Work Authorizations to other City Departments 


16.882 


Subtotal Other Operating Expenses 


$241,837 


Subtotal Estimated Annual Operating Budget 


$1,641,629 


Estimated One-Time Start Up Costs 




Equipment 


Computers 




(16 desktop computers workstations @ $3,000 each) 


48,000 


Telephones 




(16 units, including installation, @ $800 each) 


12,800 


Automobiles 




(2 electric sedans @ $25,000 each - See Comment No. 5) 

Subtotal Equipment 


50.000 


$110,800 


Subtotal Estimated One-Time Start Up Costs 


$110,800 


Estimated Total Costs 


$1,752,429 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

45 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



5. Mr. Hoy advises that RPD is negotiating an agreement 
with, the Department of Public Work's (DPW) Bureau of 
Engineering for office space adjacent to their Landscape 
Architecture and Project Management Divisions, on the 

. 5 th floor of 30 Van Ness Avenue. Costs will be included as 
a work order to DPW, subject to future appropriation 
approval by the Board of Supervisors. According to Mr. 
Hoy, the two automobiles listed in the above estimated 
budget, at a total cost of $50,000 and also subject to 
future appropriation approval by the Board of 
Supervisors, would be used for travel to and from 
community meetings, RPD Commission meetings, project 
sites, other City departments (i.e. Department of City 
Planning, the Arts Commission and DPW). 

6. Proposition C, passed by voters in March of 2000, which 
extended the Park Recreation and Open Space Fund 
program by 30 years, states that the "Recreation and 
Park Department and the Department of Public Works 
(DPW) shall establish a committee to develop a written, 
capital implementation program, for consideration of both 
Departments, that will govern DPWs involvement in 
capital projects undertaken by the Recreation and Park 
Department. In developing this program, the committee 
shall consider the Capital Plan... staffing levels in both 
Departments, and the availability of other resources." 
According to Mr. Hoy, DPW and RPD did form such a 
joint committee immediately following passage of 
Proposition C in March of 2000 to work together to 
develop RPD's Capital Plan, which was completed on May 
18, 2000 and includes RPD's plans for implementing its 
Capital Plan. In addition, Mr. Hoy advises that RPD and 
DPW worked together to determine the staffing that 
would be necessary in both departments to implement the 
Capital Plan. The DPW and RPD continue to meet 
monthly to discuss and monitor the progress of RPD's 
Capital Plan, according to Mr. Hoy. The joint committee is 
comprised of the Director of RPD and the Director of 
DPW, as well as key capital project staff from both 
departments. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

46 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

7. The Budget Analyst notes that RPD has not completed 
a formal analysis comparing the cost of RPD overseeing 
its own Capital Plan versus DPW overseeing RPD's 
Capital Plan, as was requested by the Board of 
Supervisors during the budget review process for Fiscal 
Year 2000-2001. Mr. Hoy states in Attachment III that 
RPD expects that the costs of RPD overseeing its own 
capital projects would be either equal to or lower than 
having DPW oversee RPD's projects. However, Mr. Hoy 
advises that such a cost comparison would be difficult due 
to differences in accounting procedures each department 
uses to bill costs to projects. The Budget Analyst believes 
that in order to fully evaluate the value of RPD's proposed 
expanded Capital Division, which would be staffed by the 
subject 16 new positions, RPD should have completed a 
formal comparison between RPD's costs and DPWs costs 
of overseeing RPD's $400 million Capital Plan. Because 
RPD has failed to complete such a cost comparison, the 
Budget Analyst considers approval of the proposed release 
of reserved funs to be a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 

8. Given the scope of RPD's $400 million 10-year Capital 
Plan and the need for RPD to raise a total of $150 million 
in additional funding ($100 million from Federal and 
State grants and $50 million from private donors), the 
Budget Analyst recommends that the Board of 
Supervisors request that RPD report back to the Board of 
Supervisors on the status of the expanded Capital 
Division, RPD's Capital Plan, and potential funding 
sources in January of 2002, or approximately six months 
after the beginning of Fiscal Year 2001-2002. 

Recommendations: 1. Reduce the proposed release of reserved bond funds by 

$1,087,131, from $1,214,826 to $127,695. Request the 
Controller to close out the $1,087,131 balance in reserved 
bond funds to be available for future appropriation to 
Capital Improvement Projects, in accordance with 
Comment No. 1 above. 

2. Request that the Recreation and Park Department 
report back to the Board of Supervisors on the status of 
the expanded Capital Division, RPD's Capital Plan, and 
potential funding sources in January of 2002, or 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
47 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



approximately six months after the beginning of Fiscal 
Year 2001-2002, in accordance with Comment No. 8 
above. 

3. Approval of the proposed remaining release of reserved 
funds of $127,965 is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors, because: 

(a) RPD plans to work with the Department of Human 
Resources to reclassify eight of the 16 subject 
positions, which would result in an annual increase of 
$155,025 in Salary and Mandatory Fringe Benefit 
costs, as stated in Comment No. 2 above, at the same 
time RPD is now requesting funds for the present 
classification of these eight positions; 

(b) approximately $150 million of RPD's $400 million 
Capital Plan will be funded by future State and 
Federal grants ($100 million) and private and 
foundation donations ($50 million), which have not yet 
been secured, as stated in Comment No. 3 above. As a 
comparison, DPW only realizes approximately $4 
million annually from Federal and State grants for 
transportation-related improvements and the City as 
a whole realizes an average of approximately $20-$25 
million annually in Federal and State grants for 
transportation-related projects; and, 

(c) RPD has not completed a formal analysis comparing 
the cost and effectiveness of RPD overseeing its own 
Capital Plan versus DPW overseeing RPD's Capital 
Plan, as was requested by the Board of Supervisors 
during the budget review process for Fiscal Year 2000- 
2001, in accordance with Comment No. 7 above. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

48 



Attachment I 



ATTACHMENT I 

Prioritization of Projects within the Capital Plan 

The Capital Plan was developed following an assessment of the physical conditions of 
each facility in the City by the JV architectural firms of Young de la Sota and the 
Architectural Resources Group. The assessment evaluated the landscape, architectural, 
structural, mechanical and electrical needs of the buildings, courts, and grounds at each 
site. That assessment was the basis for the Capital Plan, a facility improvement plan, 
which schedules improvements in each district for ajl facilities. 

Recreation and Park staff prioritized the start dates for various sites based on physical 
condition, deferred maintenance and use, with consideration of the impact of 
construction closures on neighboring facilities within each district and City-wide. For 
example, although afl fjool facilities will be renovated, we cannot close too many at once 
(i.e. Sava, Hamilton, North Beach) depriving the citizens of that recreational opportunity. 
Similarly, we cannot close neighboring Recreation Centers (i.e. Eureka and Upper Noe 
Valley) without an impact to the community. RPD vetted this Capital Plan and its 
prioritization in 11 community meetings, one in each district, throughout the City. In 
some cases the priority of projects was changed at the request of those citizens 
represented at the district meetings. The Capital Plan was then presented in publicly 
noticed meetings before the Recreation and Park Commission (both committees and 
commission levels), and the Open Space Advisory Committee. The Capital Plan was 
presented to the Board of Supervisors Parks and Recreation Committee. 

Projects developed from the Capital Plan will address deferred maintenance, seismic 
upgrades, ADA improvements, modernization and changes in use at each facility. These 
will take the form of multiple projects to address field and court renovations, clubhouses, 
recreation centers, pools, play areas and playgrounds. 

The Capital Plan is not static and is meant to be a "road map" guiding the direction of the 
Capital Program for the next 10 years. Like any guide, the direction can be changed to 
accommodate unforeseen difficulties that may occur during the journey. For instance, if 
a play structure requires immediate repairs (i.e. So. Sunset Playground), it would be 
wise to renovate it ahead of schedule rather than repair it just to renovate it later. The 
Capital Plan is reviewed annually and updated as required by Proposition C. 

Oversight of the Capital Plan and its execution falls to the Recreation and Park 
Commission and its Committees, Recreation, Parks and Planning and Finance 
Administration. The Mayor and the Board of Supervisors are represented by the Parks 
and Recreation Open Space Advisory Committee. Two representatives from each 
district Supervisor and one representative of the Mayor, staff that committee of 23. It is 
the responsibility of these committee members to ensure that the work required 
throughout the City proceeds as planned and that the expenditures necessary are 
distributed fairly throughout the City based on neighborhoods, number of facilities per 
district and physical needs. 



Source: Recreation and Park Department 



49 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of 3 

Recreation and Park Department 

PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT TO CAPITAL DIVISION TEAM 

16 Positions 

The Recreation and Park Department (RPD) is embarking on the implementation of their Capital 
Improvement Plan. The Capital Division within the department will manage the Capital Plan. This 
division will be responsible to execute the Capital Plan as described and approved by the Board of 
Supervisors, the Recreation and Park Commission and the voters through Proposition C of the March 
2000 election. The Capital Plan anticipates over S400M in capital improvements throughout San 
Francisco's neighborhood parks. This total and its resultant annual capital outlay of S40M/year will 
require additional positions in RPD. As required by Proposition C, the RPD will work with the 
Department of Public Works (DPW) to meet these goals. 

The Capital Program staff will consist of professionals from both departments in both technical and 
management fields. As structured, the staff will focus on two major roles with different 
responsibilities: 

1. Project Development, Definition and Direction 

2. Project Implementation. - 

1. Project Development, Definition and Direction 

The RPD has the responsibility to develop, define and direct the projects necessary to execute the 
capital plan in accordance with its operational need. In the past several years, the department has 
managed this role with two planners, two landscape architects, one architect and engineer. The volume 
of work produced under these conditions averaged 3.75M annually, the last several years. 

Project Definition requires three major components: Scope of Work, Schedule of Activities, and 
Budgeted Cost. In conjunction with users, staff, stakeholders, designers, DPW and other professionals 
the department will evaluate the proposed project and confirm the: 

Scope of Work- (The basis of these definitions was prepared by an assessment performed in 1999). 
Condition Assessment (confirm previous assessments) 
Hazardous Materials Assessment (investigate, develop mitigation plan) 
Soils Conditions (sampling, profiles and engineering recommendations for design) 
Physical Survey, Topography (establish limitations and physical features to retain) 
Existing Operational Uses (functional activities) 

Proposed Operational Uses (Working with neighborhood and community advocates the 
RPD will determine the current and proposed uses of each 
facility and the changes necessary to accommodate those uses). 
Physical Requirements for Existing and Proposed Uses 

Schedule of Activities, Impacts and Process 

Definition, Design, Bid and Construction Activities 
Impact on Existing Operations (assess impact and mitigation necessary) 
Relocation or Temporary Facilities (determine need and/or change in operation) 
Project Phasing (temporary facilities required, moves, effect on critical path) 

Budgeted Costs 

Construction Cost Source: Recreation and Park Department 

Other Costs and Fees 

Program Management 

Project Management 

Design Services 

Permits and Fees 

Construction Management 

Commissioning Activities 

50 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 3 

2. Project Implementation 

Project Implementation requires Project Management, Design, Preparation of Contract Documents, 
Bidding and Construction. The Capital Program anticipates the majority of this work to be performed 
by DPW and/or its Consultants. In using DPW, RPD will benefit from the infrastructure already 
established in DPW for contract administration, accounting and contract management. The 
departments have collaborated on this division of responsibility and agree that a potential exists for 
crossover between personnel in either department. 

The following two pages include the 16 positions and job descriptions necessary for RPD to fulfill their 
obligations to the citizens of San Francisco as described in Item 1 above. This increase in ability of 
RPD to direct the work of DPW and/or other professionals in delivering the projects outlined in the 
Capital Plan is essential to its success. 



51 



Attachment .II 
Page 3 of 3 



Date: 4/5/01 
Sender: Gary Hoy 
To: Emilie Neumann 

Priority: Normal 
Subject: Contracting 



Emilie 

Per your request, 

RPD's Policy on Construction Contracting: 

The Recreation and Park Capital Division will follow CCSF Administrative Code, Chapter 6, in 
soliciting proposals for construction projects. Per that chapter, projects over 100,000 in 
construction cost would be publicly bid and awarded. Projects under 100,000 can be either 
publicly bid, ofawarded through an informal contract. 

For those projects designed and or managed by DPW, Recreation and Park would require that 
DPW act as Contracting Authority for the CCSF. DPW's overhead and billing structure pays for 
those services when design and management services are performed by DPW. It is not RPD's 
intention to bid and award those construction contracts designed and managed by DPW. This 
would in effect require RPD to provide those services already paid for by the use of DPW's staff 
and would be fiscally irresponsible. RPD will continue to advertise and award minor informal 
contracts (<$1 00,000) for small construction projects designed by in house staff. 

Gary Hoy 

Capital Program Manager 



52 



Memo to Budget Analyst 
March 23, 2001 



From: Recreation and Park Department 



Attachment III 
Page 1 of 5 



Memo #2: Please answer/address the following in formal memo to the Budget 
Analyst, based on the issues raised by the Budget Analyst and the 
Finance Committee dun'ng the FY 2000-2001 budget review: 



1 . Please describe the department's new Capital Division: 

a) Why was it created? what are the divisions goals and responsibilities? 
The Capital Division is not new (as indicated by the Budget Analyst's 
Request for Information Question 5. a). As of FY 00-01, there are 8 
individuals (+2 vacancies) who are responsible for the planning, 
direction and oversight of Recreation and Park's capital projects. The 
name "Capital Division" is a new title for the individuals formerly 
referred to- as the "Planning Division". This change in title is in 
response to the contracting authority granted RPD through the 
Charter Amendment of Proposition C, March 2000. Their goals and 
responsibilities are to seek community input and consensus on 
renovations, and capital improvements for the City's recreation and 
park facilities. Following the communities' input and advice, they 
define the scope of capital improvements, determine the impacts to 
the project from various issues (i.e. topography, soils, hazardous 
materials, relocation, and /or temporary facilities) and prepare a 
project plan. The Project Plan defines the scope of work, the 
schedule, milestones, completion dates and budget. This plan is 
delivered to DPW and/or it's consultants as the document governing 
the design and construction of each project. The Project Plan is both 
the means of measuring performance of DPW and RPD staff and a 
tool to use to improve the execution of capital projects throughout the 
life of the program. 

b) What new function does this division provide to the department that 
was previously lacking? There is no new function provided by RPD 
with this additional staff, however the size of the new division expands 
on the existing function of the planning group within the Recreation 
and Park Department. The Capital Plan as adopted by the Board of 
Supervisors, and as required by the March 2000 Ballot Proposition C, 
will significantly increase in the number of capital projects executed by 
RPD annually. Working through DPW and using Open Space funds 
for the previous 8 years, we have completed approximately 
$3.75M/per year in capital projects. To meet the demands of the 
voters and the needs of the department we will need to deliver in 
excess of $40M in capital projects annually. These figures are 
independent of the Golden Gate Park and Zoo Bond, which are 
primarily managed by DPW and/or consultants. 

c) What is the status of the new Division? Has it been formed yet? If not, 
when will it be? The current status is as indicated above, a staff of 8 
(+2 vacancies). This includes last year's budget request, which added 
a Class 5508 position, Project Manager IV. As previously indicated, 
the Division has always been formed but does not have sufficient staff 
to meet the needs of the public. 



53 



Attachment III 
J^age 2 o£ b 

Memo to Budget Analyst 

March 23, 2001 



d) How many staff members does it currently have? As indicated 
previously, it has 10 positions (8 filled). Requisitions to fill the two 
vacancies have been submitted to DHR. Where were these 
employees previously in the department? The members were in the 
same division but the name of that division was previously called the 
"Planning Division". How many total employees does the Division plan 
to ultimately have? Following approval of these positions, the Division 
will contain 24 positions. How many of these positions have already 
been approved and when were they approved? 10 Positions were 
approved in previous FY budgets. The 1987 Bond, the 1992 GGP 
Bond, the Open Space Program and the General Fund, fund them. 
The most recent addition to the staff was the addition of the Project 
ManageriVjin the current FY 00-01. 

2. Please state the funding sources for the $1,214,826 in reserves - which 
bonds and series? - which project budgets? Funds for the $1,214,826 will be 
appropriated as part of a supplemental appropriation for the Neighborhood 
Parks Bond, Series 2001 B. They will appear as labor costs against various 
projects as is common for all capital project budgets. 

3. Please explain when you expect to hire the positions to be funded by the 
reserved funds and where you are currently in the hiring process. We are unable 
to submit or gain permission to fill the positions associated with the reserved 
funds until the release of reserve is granted. It is anticipated that following 
approval of this release request, requisitions to fill those positions will be 
immediately approved by the Dept. of Human Resources and the Mayors Office. 
Transfer of existing staff from other departments (i.e. PUC, SFIA, DPW, City 
College) will most likely accomplish recruitment of personnel. We expect those 
transfers to be accomplished by May 7, 2001. Any vacancies remaining after the 
request for transfers will be filled by recruitment through DHR. 

4. State whether or not you have accounted for related costs of hiring the 
proposed new staff (equipment, materials, space, etc.). If you have, please 
include details in the budget, as requested above. If not, please explain why. And 
please address space issues.... Will you be able to house the new employees? 
Where? Will you require additional space/ leases? As indicated above, 
equipment and supplies will be directly charged to bond sales. They are not a 
part of this request but will be included in the bond sale appropriation. We are 
negotiating an agreement with DPW's Bureau of Engineering for office space 
adjacent to their Landscape Architecture and Project Management Divisions, on 
the 5 th floor of 30 Van Ness Avenue. Costs will be included as a work order to 
DPW in future bond sale appropriations until such time as an indirect cost plan is 
developed by RPD and approved by the Controller. 



54 



Memo to Budget Analyst 
March 23, 2001 



Attachment III 
Page 3 of 5 



5. Below are excerpts from the Budget Analyst report to the Finance Committee 
during the FY 2000-2001 budget review, which formed the basis of the Budget 
Analyst's recommendation that the subject funds be placed on reserve. Please 
respond to each of the requests/concerns: 

(a) The Department currently has 12 existing positions (with annual Salary 
and Fringe Benefits of $1,140,078) funded by Open Space funding, bond 
funding and the General Fund to provide oversight and planning of 
existing capital projects. The Department has not explained how all 
current positions will be taken into account in this plan [for the new 
Capital Division]. The Department should account for the use of the 
current personnel the Department already has which perform similar 
functions for Open Space, the Park Renaissance Project and other bond 
funds to make sure that such functions are not duplicated and all are 
necessary. 

The Recreation and Park Department currently has 12 positions funded 
by Open Space funding, bond funding and the General Fund. Ten of 
these positions are indicated in black on the attached organization chart 
and are responsible for the planning, direction and oversight of the 
Golden Gate Park Bond, the 1987 Neighborhood Parks Bond, and Open 
Space Funded Projects. 

• The 1987 Bond funded one position in the Capital Division: 
Class 5272, Landscape Architect Associate II. 

The bond program remains active with work at Lake Merced. 

• The 1992 Golden Gate Park Bond funds two positions: 

5282, Planner IV, vacant following retirement of the incumbent in 
January 2001 (a requisition request was submitted to DHR), and 
Class 1446, Secretary. This position is responsible for oversight and 
direction of the Golden Gate Park Bond managed jointly with DPW. 

• The Open Space Program funds 6 positions in the Capital Division: 
Class 5268, Architect: 

Class 5218, Structural Engineer: 

Class 5272, Landscape Architectural Associate II: 

Class 5291, Planner III: and 

Class 5283, Planner V (vacant, a requisition was submitted to DHR): 

Class 1822, Analyst (accounting transactions through FAMIS) 

These individuals are responsible for the planning, direction and 

oversight of the Open Space funded capital projects. 

• Two other positions are funded by Open Space assigned to 
operational functions: 

Class 1446, Secretary (assist, to Open Space Advisory Committee) 
Class 1823, Senior Analyst (Property management services) 

• The General Fund supports the position of the Project Manager IV. 



55 



Attachment III 
Memo to Budget Analyst Page 4 ot b 

March 23, 2001 



In the Budget Analyst's judgement, without a well-developed plan, using 
appropriate policies and procedures, the result of the addition of such 
administrative staff [the new requested positions funded by the proposed 
reserve] may be extensive duplication of DPWs administrative procedures or the 
inefficient and ineffective management of these contracts. 

The Recreation and Park Department has worked with DPW for the past year to 
prepare a well-developed plan. Those efforts are apparent in the language of 
Proposition C and in the functional organization chart. As required by Proposition 
C, the policies and procedures governing the implementation of capital projects 
will be established by a committee formed by DPW and RPD. These will be 
based on procedures already in place at DPW, in conformance with appropriate 
chapters of the SF Administrative Code. The Recreation and Park Department 
and DPW meet monthly to discuss policies, procedures and activities. 

The Budget Analyst recommends the reserve of these bond funded positions 
until such time as the Department has performed a cost benefit analysis, and 
reports back to the Board of Supervisors, to determine that taking over the 
contract function that DPW performs could more effectively be performed by the 
Department and that there would not be any material duplication of efforts 
between the functions of the Department's Capital Division Team and DPW. As 
part of this analysis, the Department should compare their costs to DPWs cost 
for performing the same sen/ices." 

Duplication of Efforts 

The Recreation and Park Department's Capital Division Team will not duplicate 
the functions of DPW. The magnitude in numbers and value of capital projects 
changed dramatically with the passage of the Neighborhood Parks Bond of 
$11 0M, Proposition A - March 2000 Ballot Measure. That bond is one quarter of 
the total capital program of $400M. In addition to the bond, $140M of open space 
funds is committed to the program with the remaining funds to be secured by an 
aggressive grant and philanthropy effort. The capital program will require the 
addition of staff who are responsible for the management, funding, definition and 
direction of those improvements. DPW would also need to recruit additional 
staff if in order to perform these functions. It is not the intent of RPD to 
exercise its authority to advertise and award capital construction projects 
designed or managed by DPW. Those projects managed and/or designed by 
DPW will continue to be advertised, awarded and contracted by DPW. 



56 



Memo to Budget Analyst 
March 23, 2001 



Attachment ill 
Page 5 of 5 



Cost Benefits 

At this time, it is impossible to provide a cost benefit analysis to substantiate the 
difference between DPW and RPD. It is akin to comparing apples and oranges. 
To compare the costs of DPW's services versus the same services provided by 
RPD will result in a negative evaluation of the DPW's costs as a result of 
significant differences in accounting procedures. DPW's design and engineering 
bureaus (whose technical and administrative staff parallel the positions 
considered by this request) budget(s) are prepared using an indirect cost plan to 
recover both the indirect labor and non-labor costs associated with its 
organization. It is necessary for DPW to charge other departments 233% of their 
direct labor charges to fund those costs which, in other departments, are often 
covered by general fund or other revenues. 

If we were to compaT.e DPW and RPD's labor costs for performing the same 
services based on this scenario, it would result in lower costs to projects 
performed by RPD. However, this is not an entirely accurate accounting. RPD 
has traditionally charged the cost of equipment and administrative support to the 
General Fund or directly to the Bond and Open Space Programs. 

In the future, it is the intent of RPD to develop an indirect cost plan to fund 
indirect labor, equipment and other costs associated with the delivery of capital 
projects (as is the practice at DPW). Using an indirect cost plan will not materially 
change those costs associated with capital projects but the method of accounting 
will be consistent in these two department's capital programs. As labor rates, 
fringe benefits, equipment and other costs are identical in both departments, we 
expect that this will result in similar rates for RPD's indirect cost plan. 

It is apparent from the passage of Proposition C that the voters of San Francisco 
prefer that RPD be responsible for the execution of its capital projects. The 
concern of cost and efficiency raised in response to RPD's involvement in Capital 
Projects will be addressed with further verification. In order to address those 
concerns, the department will employ accounting practices identical to those 
used by DPW. We expect that results will indicate either the same or lower costs. 

Finally, the method of accounting used for DPW and RPD should also be 
consistent for those other departments with contracting authority as granted by 
the Charter and Chapter 6 of the Administrative Code (i.e. the Port, MUNI, SFIA, 
PUC), currently, this is not the case. 



57 



Attachment IV 
Page 1 of "3 



Date: 3/30/01 

Sender: Gary Hoy f Recreation and Park Department 

To: Emilie Neumann 

cc: Angela Gengler 

Priority: Normal 

Subject: Fwd:draft of TXs explanations __^_^ 

Emilie, 

As we mentioned in our response to your original information request, we agree with some of 
the Budget Analyst's comments and will be working with the Mayor's office and the Dept. of 
Human Resources to transfer those 16 positions into more appropriate classifications for the 
work necessary. These "TX s" will be in effect for the remainder of this FY and will become part 
of the Budget for FY 01-02. The following is a list of the proposed TXs: 

Changes to Administrative Support Positions: 
FY 00-01 Budget Proposed TX 

1426 Sr. Clerk Typist 1024 IS Administrator Supervisor 

1426 Sr. Clerk Typist 1452 Executive Secretary II 

One of the Capital Division's primary goals is to provide information on capital projects to the 
public in a timely manner. The above Information Systems position is critical. That person 
would be responsible for the development and implementation of a new project management 
database with links and coordination to the City's GIS system. This data collection and the 
maintenance of databases will enable the Department to report on the status of Capital Projects, 
bond sales, and expenditure as required by the Board of Supervisors and Proposition C. The 
Executive Secretary would be responsible for higher level secretarial and administrative 
responsibilities including: supporting the management and subordinate teams, facilitating data 
collection, as well as coordinating the team's staff and preparing reports. These responsibilities 
are necessary for the Capital Division and are beyond the MQs of the previous classifications. 

Changes to Finance/Budget Team: 



FY 00-01 Budget 


Proposed TX 


1632 


Sr. Account Clerk 


TX to Implementation Team Below 


1652 


Sr. Accountant 


TX to Implementation Team Below 


1820 


Jr. Admin. Analyst 


TX to Implementation Team Below 


1823 


Sr. Admin. Analyst 


No Change 


1823 


Sr. Admin. Analyst 


No Change 


1824 


Prin. Admin. Analyst 


No Change 


1654 


Prin. Accountant 


No Change 



As indicated on the updated organization chart (attached), the financial unit will be comprised of 
4 analysts (3 new) and 1 accountant. Given the fiscal responsibilities of the Capital Division, we 
have determined this staffing level to be appropriate and in line with similar programs at DPW. 
However, we anticipate an extremely high level of interaction with the community on capital 
projects. Therefore, we have proposed to TX the junior analyst and accountant positions to 
landscape architect classifications who would be able to assist the project leaders in providing 
complex technical information to the community. 

Changes to Technical Positions: 
Planning/Project Development Team 



58 



Attachment IV 
tfage 2 ot i 



FY 00-01 Budget 


Proposed TX 


5283 


Planner V 


5133 Program Manager II 


5293 


Planner IV 


5274 Landscape Architect 


5293 


Planner IV 


5274 Landscape Architect 


5272 


Land. Arch. Assoc. II 


No Change 


5272 


Land. Arch. Assoc. II 


No Change 


5275 


Sr. Landscape Arch. 


No Change 



Implementation Team 
FY 00-01 Budget 

1820 Jr. Admin. Analyst 
1652 Sr. Accountant 
1632 ' Sr. Account Clerk 
6331 Building Inspector 



Proposed TX 

5274 Landscape Architect 
5262 Land. Arch. Assoc. JJ 
5262 Land. Arch. Assoc. II 
No Change 



In addition to those analyst and accounting positions mentioned above, the proposed TXs 
represent appropriate changes downward from Senior Landscape Architect and high level 
planning positions to appropriate architectural and planning classifications. This would allow 
the department to seek staff who are experienced and capable in seeking community input, 
identifying scope of projects, and determining the impacts to the projects. The Planner V 
Classification is TX'd to a Program Manager II whose MQ's are achievable by any of the 
technical disciplines contained in the reporting staff. 



orgchartdoc 



*_♦_♦_♦_•_•_•_•_•_• __«_"A«A«A«A»A»A«A»A«A«A»A»A»A«A«A»_« 

Angela Gengler 

San Francisco Recreation and Park Department 

Finance Division 

McLaren Lodge. Colden Gate Park 

501 Stanyan Street 

San Francisco. CA 94117-1898 

(415)831-2789 



59 



Actacnmenu iv , 






£1 

re a 
.*; o 

re > 

a 




- 




















ro 


<: 








•'o 


5t 


i^- 


■<r 

■.■a. 

:<p; 




■« 




-u. m 
S. <-> °- 
- w O 

M 











■:o ■•:■: 








•<■:■'• 




:-2-.if 




--amo 


- ■ 
:o-: 


■ '■a. ts 








■:-c ■:•: 


o 




<••• 


•:°-:-x 









■C '. 






j2 ■ 














.■«• 




■«••• 


■:cfo 


la 


•■<• 










o 




























c 


40 






•£•' 






n 



fe UJ — 
•3 to "- 



<u t- i" 
w £ 

















■> 




rt 


>«< 


■ r: 




□ 


>" 










D. 


■ ■ m 




■to 












a. 


■!T 


a-; 





•;_':<o:q 





V) 










> 


E 


a 


CM "J 

2 u 


B 




S k 


a. 






> 




c 




u 







a 






a 








~ 


7- 


CO 

E 


CJ 


ni 










c 


O 


n 








a. 


U> 


u 
< 



= m 




a * 


> 




a 






c) m 

c x 
uj 5 


a. 
u 














(/) CM 


a. 


< — 























> _Q 




:■<•:•:•: a-: 


i. > a 




Ji,23F:i 


5 S « 




■ :•> :K a.: 




SfaS, 

o. a 












a. 




3 K; 



a ^° 



>; r-.CL 



J> 


«r 










< 


un 


g 


11 


>< 


FT 








<n 




u 

01 






■c 


SI 




rw 


p 








J 







si <<s 


> 


. O N 


B 


< m 


Q 


a 5 


E 






vi n 


u 


•D Ol 




a 


ra w 
_i — ' 


D. 




Attachment V 
Page 1 of A 
Project Planning and Development Team 

5293 Program Manger - Project planning and development: This Program Manager will directly assist 
the Capital Program Manager and be responsible for day to day management of the project planning and 
development team. This team will consist of long range planners, environmental review specialists, and 
project planners. The team consists of existing long-range planning and project development staff and new 
positions. The roles and responsibilities of those positions are described below. 

5291 Planner 1TJ - Environmental review and Permits: This Principal Administrative Analyst would be 
responsible evaluating, coordinating and securing permits and/or environmental review approvals from 
various local, state and federal agencies. These agencies include but are not limited to the Dept. of City 
Planning, Bay Conservation Development Commission, Coastal Commission, State Fish and Game, State 
Historic Preservation Office, Army Corps of Engineers, National Park Service. 

(2) 5274 Project planning and development: These Landscape Architects would be responsible for project 
planning and development of multiple, medium to large-scale projects (S.5M - S10M each). This will require 
excellent communication arid facilitation skills, and sound technical expertise. Planning requires 
identification of issues, assessment of physical and environmental constraints, consensus building with 
communities, contract management, interaction with the Commission and its Committees. 

(2) 5272 Project planning and development: These Associate II Landscape Architects would be 
responsible for project planning and development of multiple, small to medium-scale projects ($50,000 - 
S5M each). This will require excellent communication and facilitation skills, and sound technical expertise. 
Planning requires identification of issues, assessment of physical and environmental constraints, consensus 
building with communities, contract management, interaction with the Commission and its Committees. 

CAPITAL PROGRAM - FINANCE BUDGET TEAM - STAFF (3): 

This unit will be responsible for all aspects of the finances of the program; including bond sales, grant 
applications, financial projections, revenue transfers and tracking and charging of capital expenditures for the 
whole capital program. In addition, they will be responsible for seeking other sources of funds (local, State 
and Federal grants). These positions will be funded from bond and OS Fund. 

1824 Principal Admin. Analyst - Budget & Finance: This Principal Administrative Analyst would be 
responsible for financial management of the Capital Program including financial planning, appropriations, 
tracking fund sources, and reporting expenditures as required by the SF Administrative Code. Prepare and 
annually update Capital Plan, prepare periodic status reports relative to the plan on efforts to secure funds. 
Develop and maintain financial plans for the capital program and its projects as necessary 

1823 Sr. Admin Analyst - Grants: This Sr. Administrative Analyst position would be responsible to 
manage procurement of outside grants and funding in order to fully fund the Capital Program as defined in 
Proposition C. The position assist with the financial planning. The position will work directly with the 
Program Manager and General Manager and act as the interface with granting agencies as the Department's 
representative. 

1823 Sr. Admin Analyst - Grant Accounting: This Sr. Administrative Analyst position would be 
responsible for assisting the Finance and Budget Manager (1824) and the Program Manager in the 
accounting transactions and billing required by the use of Grant Funds from various agencies. 

1654 Accounting: This Principal Accountant will execute transactions through the Controller's FAMIS 
accounting system. This will require FAMIS project set-up, fund transfers, journal entries, coordination and 
work orders with other departments, contract encumbrances and payments to consultants, and contractors. 
CAPITAL PROGRAM - ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT - STAFF (5): 

This unit of the Capital Program Division will be responsible for providing support and assistance to the 
Program Manager, the Planning and Development Unit and the Financial and Budget Team. 

61 



Attachment V 

Page 2 of 4 

1024 Information Systems for Capital: In addition to network maintenance, hardware and software 
maintenance and training, this Administrative Information Systems position would be responsible for the 
development and implementation of a new project management database with links and coordination to the 
City's GIS system. This data collection and the maintenance of databases will enable the Department to 
report on the status of Capital Projects, bond sales, and expenditures as required by the SF Administrative 
Code and Proposition C. 

1452 Administrative Support: This Executive Secretary would be responsible for the higher level 
secretarial and administrative responsibilities for the Capital Program Manager. The position will also 
provide administrative support to the subordinate teams and facilitate in the data collection, reporting and 
coordination of the team's staff. 



TECHNICAL DESIGN TEAM - STAFF ffl: 

This unit will be responsible for assisting the Project Planning and Development Team during the pre-design 
and scope development phase. Following completion of the Project Plan, the Design Team will be 
responsible for developing ahdlissuing Contract Documents and following the project to completion. These 
positions will be funded from bond and Open Space Fund proceeds. 

5274 Landscape Architect: This position would be responsible to oversee the preparation and execution of 
contract documents for landscape improvements at various facilities. The current workload at DPW requires 
projects to be identified by priority and wait until staff is available. This new division of designers within the 
Recreation and Park Department will allow Recreation and Park the ability to prepare contract documents 
and therefore deliver projects sooner. The Landscape Architect will supervise subordinate staff, provide 
quality assurance, and be responsible for content, accuracy and thoroughness of the Contract Documents 

2-5262 Landscape Architect Associate I's: These two Landscape Architect Associate I's would assist 
existing (2) 5272 Landscape Architect II's and the 5274 Landscape Architect. They would be responsible for 
preparing portions of the design; contract documents, and participate in the construction process as directed 
by the 5274 Landscape Architect. They will also assist the Project Planning and Development Team in the 
development of new projects by preparing conceptual and schematic design proposals. 

6331 Building Inspector: This position would be responsible for evaluating existing conditions and 
developing data for inclusion in the facilities management plan. This information will enhance current data, 
provide the basis for project development, predict life cycle and replacement costs for various facilities, and 
track progress on emergency repairs and deferred maintenance. The Inspector will also confirm compliance 
of finished work with the Recreation and Park Department's Materials and Design Standards. 



62 



Attachment V 
Page 3 o£ A 



The roles and responsibilities of 10 current Capital Division positions arc described below. 

5508 Project Manger IV-Capital Program Manager: The Project Manager IV will directly 
assist the General Manager and be responsible for the successful execution of the Capital Plan. 
The PM rv will oversee the work of the Project Planning and Development team, the Finance and 
Budget team, the Technical Implementation team, and the work of its consultants and contractors 
(i.e. DPW). The PM IV is responsible for the development and maintenance of the policies and 
procedures necessary for the organization, and responsible for day to day management of the 
teams. The PM IV will direct the work of the various reporting individuals, initiate bond sales and 
appropriation requests, monitor progress of the Capital Plan, and make reports and presentations 
to the Commission, Mayor and the Board of Supervisors. The PM IV is responsible for the review 
and performance evaluation of reporting staff and the organization, and will revise policies, 
procedures and responsibilities as necessary to ensure success. 

5282 Planner rv - Long Range Planning: This Planner IV is responsible the long range 
planning group of the Planning and Development Team. The position's responsibility is to assess 
the recreation and park needs, citywide and develop strategies for acquisition, renovation and 
improvements to maintain the Recreation and Park System. As the City continues to expand, 
demographics change, RPD needs to continuously plan and ensure the system's usefulness to the 
citizens of San Francisco. The Position will focus energies on the development of the newly 
expanded city boundaries (i.e. Treasure Island, Hunters Point) and work with SFRA in 
developing an open space and recreation component to new developments (i.e. Mission Bay and 
Central Waterfront). 

5282 Planner TV - Environmental review and Acquisitions: This Planner IV assists in 
development of the Long-Range Plan, and is responsible for preparation and coordination 
environmental reviews for RPD projects. The Planner IV also evaluates project environmental 
reviews from various other private, local, state and federal agencies to determine impact and 
mitigation necessary to adjacent Recreation and Park assets. The Planner IV also evaluates 
project designs for conformance with the long range plan and general planning principles. 

5291 Planner m - Environmental review and Permits: The Planner III is also responsible for 
implementation of the acquisition element of the Open Space Program. That element requires 
communication and coordination with the Dept. of Real Estate and other City Departments (i.e. 
DCP, SFRA, SFUSD). The Planner m is also responsible for securing the necessary approvals 
for Capital Projects from the Dept. of City Planning, including Master Plan Referrals, Conditional 
Use Permits, etc. The Planner HI assists the Project Development Team in determining the 
planning impacts of proposed improvements at RPD facilities. 

5218 Structural Eng. TX'd to 5206 Civil Engineer: Project planning and development: This 
position was reclassified to a lower class. The individual responsible for project planning and 
development of multiple, medium to large-scale engineering projects (S.5M - S10M each). This 
will require excellent communication and facilitation skills, and sound technical expertise. 
Planning requires identification of issues, assessment of physical and environmental constraints, 
consensus building with communities, contract management, interaction with the Commission 
and its Committees. Current project responsibilities include but are not limited to the following: 
(GGP Lake Projects, GGP Utilities Projects, GGP Pump Station, Marina Master Plan- 
Renovation, Buena Vista Erosion Control, Moscone Playground, India Basin Park and Wetlands 
Restoration, Randall Museum). 



63 



Attachment V 
Page A ot k 



1822 Admin Analyst -Accounting: This Administrative Analyst position is responsible for 
transactions via the Controller's FAMIS accounting system. The Admin. Analyst sets up Capital 
Project Codes in FAMIS for both Continuing and Annual Projects using various fund sources 
which include 87 Bonds, 92 Bonds, Open Space Funds, General Funds, Gift Funds and Grants. 
The accounting system requires specific billing against each revenue source and confirmation of 
those transactions by the Controllers Office. The Admin. Analyst also works closely with DPW 
and other City Depts. in transferring revenues to accomplish tasks necessary for the execution of 
capital projects (i.e. DPW, DBI, DCP, DPH, PUC, etc.). 

5268 Architect: This position is responsible for oversight of various medium to large-scale 
architectural projects (S.5M - S10M each) currently in design or construction. This requires 
excellent communication and facilitation skills, and sound technical expertise. Planning requires 
identification of issues, assessment of physical and environmental constraints, consensus building 
with communities, contract management, interaction with the Commission and its Committees. 
Current project responsibilities include but are not limited to the following: (Eureka Valley RC, 
Upper Noe RC, North Beach Pool, Sava Pool, Margaret Hayward PG, Balboa Park, Monterey 
Conservatory, Palace of Fine Arts, Japanese Tea Garden, GGP Restrooms). 

2-5272 Landscape Architect Associate ITs: These two Landscape Architect Associate II(s) 
currently fill two roles in the Capital Division. They are responsible for project planning and 
development of multiple, medium to large-scale park and landscape projects (S.5M - S10M 
each). This requires excellent communication and facilitation skills, and sound technical 
expertise. Planning requires identification of issues, assessment of physical and environmental 
constraints, consensus building with communities, contract management, interaction with the 
Commission and its Committees. Their current project responsibilities include but are not limited 
to the following projects: (Duboce Park, Alamo Square, 23 rd and Treat Park, Brooks Park, 
Mission Delores Park, Faye House and Park, Walter Haas Jr. Park, Aptos Park, Lake Merced, St. 
Marys Square, Helen Wills PG, Koshland Park, McLaren Park, McAuley Park, Turk Hyde Mini 
Park, Pioneer Park, GGP East Entrance, So. Sunset Playground, Sunnyside PG). 

In addition, these two LA Associate II's are also responsible for preparing contract documents, 
and participate in the construction process for smaller projects performed by in house 
construction crews and informal construction contracts. 

1446 Secretary: The Secretary provides support to the Project Development and Planning Team 
described above (and the additional positions). The position is responsible for reception and 
coordination, typing support, filing and record keeping of project files. The position assists in the 
public notification process and scheduling of community meetings. The position assists in data 
collection, reporting and coordination of the team's staff. 



64 



Attachment VI 
Page 1 of 2 



This memo is in response to your e-mail request of 4/4/01 below: 

The Budget Analyst's office would also like to request in writing an explanation for what you 
used to base your estimate of $150 million to be earned ($100 M in Federal and State funding and 
$50 M in philanthropic funding). We will attach your response to our report to the Board of 
Supervisors. Please state: 

1. How you came up with these numbers 

Response: When a request for a bond proposal was submitted to the CIAC last fiscal year, RPD 
was encouraged by the committee to explore alternate sources of funds, to leverage the available 
bond funds to meet its capital needs. The amount of funding necessary is the result of need minus 
the available public funds. The CIAC and CCSF Policy Makers were unwilling to propose a 
larger GO Bond. In response the CLAC's request, RPD reviewed available funds from the 
following sources andritj-previous history in philanthropic efforts: 
State - 

a. State Park Bond~- Proposition 12 - $845M ($510M in FY 00-01) 

20 Programs (Not all available to CCSF, 1 specific to Golden Gate Park for $15M) 

b. Water Protection Act -Proposition 13 -S630M ($171M in FY00-01) 
27 Programs (Not all available to CCSF) 

c. State Energy Commission (Energy Efficiency) 

d. California Waste Management Board (Recycled Tire Program) 

e. California Department of Forestry (Urban Forestry) 

f. Legislative set asides ($3 M to $5 M for FY 00-0 1) The RPD has been successful in the 
past in obtaining legislation through its representatives in State government for capital 
improvements in Recreation and Park System (i.e. Margaret Hayward PG Clubhouse, the 
Palace of Fine Arts, the Sunnyside Conservatory). We expect, working with the 
Legislators, the Board of Supervisors and the Mayors office to maintain that level of 
funding annually. 

Federal 

a. National Park Service - Land and Water Conservation Fund 
CA = $7.7million (S1.7million northern) 

b. Urban Park and Recreation Recovery 
$28.9 million 

Philanthropic 

With the help of community groups and park advocates, the Capital Division aims to 
secure additional funds for capital improvements through Private Funds and Foundations 
including: Trust for Public Lands, Friends of Recreation and Park, other organizations 
and local community advocates. This has recently taken place in many forms including, 
gifts in place (i.e. playground structures purchased and installed by local organizations), 
fund-raising (i.e. S12M for the renovation of the Conservatory of Flowers), and 
design/engineering services (i.e. North Beach Pool-Private Foundation). 

2. Please provide as documentation a list of Federal, State and philanthropic funding expected to 
be available in future years (name of grants, funding sources, etc. and amounts). 

Federal 

c. National Park Service - Land and Water Conservation Fund (S450M FY 01-02) 

d. Urban Park and Recreation Recovery ($ 1 00M FY 1 -02) 
State 

g. State Park Bond - Proposition 12 -S845M (STBD in FY 01-02) 

h. Water Protection Act - Proposition 1 3 - $630M ($TBD in FY 1 -02) 
i. Possible future Programs - ABX29 



Source: F.ecreation and Park Department 
6^a 



Attachment VI 
Page Z of 2 



3. Please describe for each of the above the methodology/ formula that will be used by Federal 
govt/State/other funding source to distribute such funds. 

Response: In some cases, State Bonds Proposition 12 and 13, regulations are still in development. 
In other cases the requirements can be seen at website references in #1. 

3. Please describe for each of the above the methodology/ formula that will be used by Federal 
govt/State/other funding source to distribute such funds. 

Response: The methodology and formula for grant funding is extensive and specific information 
can best be retrieved at the websites provided below. 

National Park Service - Land and Water Conservation Fund 
(methodology/ formula - see http://cal-parks.ca.gov/grants/lwcf/lwguide.doc') 

Urban Park and Recreation Recovery 

(methodology/ formula - see http://www.ncrc.nps.gov/uparr/') 

2000 Park Bond Act Grants 

(methodology - see htrp://cal-parks. ca.gov/grants/ixidex.htm') 



64b 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 5 - File 01-0358 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



District Attorney's Office 

Hearing to consider the release of reserves in the amount 
of $55,000 to provide pre-trial services for defendants 
charged with "quality of life" infractions. 

$55,000 

General Fund monies reserved in the Fiscal Year 2000- 
2001 District Attorney's Office budget. 

During the FY 2000-2001 budget hearings, the Board of 
Supervisors approved, and placed on reserve, $55,000 in 
the District Attorney's Office budget for pre-trial services, 
including support services, for defendants charged with 
quality of life infractions, pending submission of program 
budget details. Quality of life infractions are violations of 
the San Francisco Police, Health, or Park and Recreation 
Codes, including public drinking, loitering, and other such 
violations. 

During the FY 2000-2001 budget review, the Board of 
Supervisors authorized transfer of responsibility for 
prosecuting quality of life infractions from the City 
Attorney's Office to the District Attorney's Office, as of 
August 1, 2000. To cover the costs of prosecuting quality 
of life infractions, the Board of Supervisors authorized 
transfer of $275,640 from the City Attorney's Office 
budget to the District Attorney's Office budget. $55,000 of 
the $275,640 was reserved, pending submission of budget 
details to the Board of Supervisors for pretrial services for 
individuals charged with quality of life infractions. 
Pretrial services for individuals charged with quality of 
life infractions include assessing the individual's needs, 
determining if the individual should receive counseling 
services or be assigned to community service, and 
arranging for such counseling services or community 
service. 

Prior to August 1, 2000, the City Attorney's Office 
reimbursed the Sheriffs Department on a work-order 
basis for pretrial services provided by the Pretrial 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

65 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Diversion Project, a nonprofit organization, to individuals 
charged by the City Attorney's Office with quality of life 
infractions. According to Ms. Jean Mariani of the Sheriffs 
Department, the Sheriffs Department modified an 
existing contract with the Pretrial Diversion Project to 
provide services for individuals charged with quality of 
life infractions. Under the modified contract, the Pretrial 
Diversion Project was paid $63,000 annually, in 12 equal 
monthly installments of $5,250, which was paid on a 
work-order basis by the City Attorney's Office to the 
Sheriffs Department. The FY 1999-2000 contract between 
the Sheriffs Department and the Pretrial Diversion 
Project totaled $801,000, including 563,000 for services 
provided to individuals charged with quality of life 
infractions. Ms. Mariani states that the modified 
agreement with the Pretrial Diversion Project to provide 
services to individuals charged with quality of life 
infractions, which specified that such services were 
provided for the City Attorney's Office, was terminated 
when responsibility for charging individuals with such 
infractions was transferred from the City Attorney's 
Office to the District Attorney's Office on August 1, 2000. 

Currently, the District Attorney's Office does not have a 
contract with the Pretrial Diversion Project to provide 
services to individuals charged with quality of life 
infractions. As stated in the attached memorandum 
(Attachment I) provided by the District Attorney's Office, 
the District Attorney's Office did not enter into a contract 
with the Pretrial Diversion Project when it assumed 
responsibility for the program on August 1, 2000, because 
program changes in both the District Attorney's Office 
and in the services provided by the Pretrial Diversion 
Project were anticipated. According to Mr. Tim Silard of 
the District Attorney's Office, the District Attorney's 
Office has been working with the Superior Court, the 
Police Department, the Mayor's Office, and the Pretrial 
Diversion Project to develop the quality of life infraction 
program, including the number of individuals who would 
be referred to the Pretrial Diversion Project for services 
and what type of services would be provided. As noted in 
Attachment I, the Pretrial Diversion Project has 
continued to provide services to individuals charged with 
quality of life infractions since August 1, 2000, when the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

66 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

program was transferred from trie City Attorney's Office 
to the District Attorney's Office. Mr. Silard states that the 
District Attorney's Office "early this year... decided that 
the program has stabilized and ...were prepared to 
request the release from reserve" of $55,000 to pay for the 
services provided by the Pretrial Diversion Project to 
individuals charged with quality of life infractions. 

The requested release of reserved funds in the amount of 
$55,000 would pay for services provided by the Pretrial 
Diversion Project to individuals charged with quality of 

life infractions on a retroactive basis from August 1, 2000 

- to date and for prospective services to be provided from 
April 1, 2001 through June 30, 2001, an 11-month period. 

Budget: The budget for services provided by the Pretrial Diversion 

Project to individuals charged with quality of life 
infractions for the 11-month period retroactive from 
August 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001, is as follows: 

1.35 FTE Court Alternative Specialist @ 

$40,000 per year (for 11 months) $49,500 

Fringe benefits (11.1 percent) 5.500 

Total $55,000 



Comments: 1. According to Mr. Silard, since responsibility for the 

quality of life infractions program was transferred to the 
District Attorney's Office in August of 2000, the District 
Attorney's Office has reviewed approximately 450 
individuals charged with quality of life infractions for 
eligibility in the pretrial diversion program and referred 
approximately 170 of these individuals to the Pretrial 
Diversion Project. The Pretrial Diversion Project 
determines if the individual will perform community 
services, such as neighborhood clean up, or receive 
counseling services. After 60 days, the individual is 
scheduled for a court hearing, and charges will be 
dismissed if the individual has complied with the pretrial 
diversion program. 

2. Mr. Silard states that the- average number of referrals 
to the Pretrial Diversion Project has increased by 15.65 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

67 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

cases, from 8.75 referrals per month between January 
2000 and August 2000, to 24.4 referrals per month, a 
178.8 percent increase, between September 2000 through 
February 2001. According to Mr. Silard, the Pretrial 
Diversion Project has provided services to 170 individuals 
charged with quality of life infractions between August 1, 
2000 and March 13, 2001, at an average cost of $206 per 
individual. 1 Attachment II describes the services 
provided by the Pretrial Diversion Project to individuals 
charged with quality of life infractions. 

"""* 3. As previously noted, the modified agreement between 
the Sheriffs Department and the Pretrial Diversion 
Project to provide services to individuals charged with 
quality of life infractions was terminated when 
responsibility for charging individuals with such 
infractions was transferred from the City Attorney's 
Office to the District Attorney's Office on August 1, 2000. 
Currently, the District Attorney's Office does not have a 
written contract with the Pretrial Diversion Project to 
provide services for individuals charged with quality of 
life infractions, although the Pretrial Diversion Project 
has continued to provide such services since August 1, 
2000. According to Mr. Silard, the District Attorney's 
Office has not paid the Pretrial Diversion Project for 
services provided since August 1, 2000. The Budget 
Analyst notes that the District Attorney's Office has 
received services from the Pretrial Diversion Project for 
individuals charged with quality of life infractions 
without a contract agreement and prior to the request for 
release of the reserved funds. Therefore, the District 
Attorney's Office subject release of reserved funds is being 
made on a retroactive basis. 

Recommendation: Approval of the retroactive request for the release of 

reserved funds of $55,000 is a policy matter for the Board 
of Supervisors. 



1 During the FY 2000-2001 budget process, the Board of Supervisors appropriated 555,000 for 
pretrial diversion services for individuals charged with quality of life infractions for the 11-month 
period from August 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001, or $5,000 per month ($55,000 divided by 11 
months). The Pretrial Diversion Project provided services to 170 individuals charged with quality of 
life infractions for the 7-month period from August 1, 2000, through February 28, 2001, for an 
expected reimbursement of $35,000 ($5,000 per month times 7 months). This equals $206 per 
individual ($35,000 divided by 170). 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

68 



'04/85/2801 14:21 4155758815 



SF DISTRICT ATTY 



PAGE 02 




TERENCE HALLINAN 
DISTRICT ATTORNEY 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



' At-tadhmerit I 
Page 1 of 2 



MEMORANDUM 

April 4, 2001 

To: Severin Campbell 

Budget Analyst's Office 

From: Tim Silard — - 

Assistant District Attorney 

Re, Release of Reserves to Pretrial Diversion Project 



Following, please find responses to your questions regarding the District Attorney's request to 
release reserve funds for the "quality of life" infraction program. Specifically, you requested 
information regarding: 1 .Why the District Attorney's Office did not request release of the funds 
earlier, and; 2. Why services were provided in the absence of a contract with Pre-Trial 
Diversion. Please feel free to contact me at (415) 553-9723 if I can provide any additional 
information. 

A. Why Funds Were Not Requested Sooner 

1 . In July 2000, the Board Finance Committee placed the funds for services from 
Pre-Trial Diversion on reserve. In discussions with members of the committee, it was 
anticipated that our office would assess and restructure the infraction program once taking it over 
from the City Attorney. Program changes were anticipated on both the legal side and services 
side. I believe it was also understood that the program, including delivery of support services, 
would not be halted but would continue while we worked with all the partners to reshape the 
program and make it better. 

2. On August 1, 2000, the infraction program was shifted to our office from the City 
Attorney. New legal staff were assigned to the project. Because of the pilot nature of this 
program, the District Attorney worked with the Courts, Pre-Trial Diversion, Police Department, 
community advocacy groups, and others to shape the infraction initiative in a productive manner, 
one that meets the service needs of the clients and also responds to the quality of life concerns of 
impacted neighborhoods. 

3. Over the ensuing several months, the District Attorney and Pre-Trial Diversion 
worked together to refine the services provided to ensure comprehensive case management and 
support services for high-need clients as well as impactful community service opportunities in 
the City's neighborhoods for those individuals selecting community service rather than support 



850 Bryant Street, San Francisco, California 94103 • Tel (415) 553-1752 • http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/da/ 

69 



04/05/2081 14:21 4155758815 SF DISTRICT ATTY PAGE 03 

Attachment I 
Page 2 of 2 

services. The program has been a work-in-progress with evolving approaches. Addressing the 
service needs of some of San Francisco's highest-need residents is challenging for any agency, 
no less so in the context of this brand new approach to the problem of quality of life violations. 
At the time these funds were placed on reserve, it was the understanding of the District 
Attorney's Office, Pre-Trial Diversion, other interested agencies, and the Board of Supervisors 
Finance Committee that just such a program planning process would occur prior to the District 
Attorney requesting the release from reserves. 

4. Changes to the program resulted in significantly increased numbers of offenders 
participating in services. Early this year, we decided that the program had sufficiently stabilized 
and that we were prepared to request the release from reserve. We requested the release on 
February 16, 2001. 

B. Contract Issues 

1 . Pre-Trial Diversion has continued to provide services all along, even in the 
absence of a contract. I do not believe that the Finance Committee anticipated nor desired that 
services stop while program development and planning activities took place. Our Office's 
decision was that we would not execute a contract on the basis of appropriated funds that were 
on reserve. Without the release of the funds, executing such a contract would obligate us to 
spend money we did not have. 

2. We have anticipated that the contract for services would be handled as it was in 
1999-2000 when the City Attorney managed the program. In 1999, the existing contract between 
the Sheriff and Pre-Trial Diversion was amended to include the infraction program. We 
anticipate asking the Sheriff to re-amend their contract with substantially the same language as 
that included in 1 999-2000 and we will work order the funds to the Sheriff once they are released 
from reserves. Pre-Trial Diversion will send invoices for this program to our office and we will 
approve them before forwarding to the Sheriff for payment. 



70 



|S3/28/2081 15:21 4155539780 

03/14/2081 IB: 39 415B263871 



SFDA FINANCE 
£F FRETRIAL 'IVEnSIQ 



Attachment :II 



SAN FRANCISCO PRETRIAL DIVERSION TJROJECT, INC. 

567 • 7th Sfftet ■* 

San Jjrantisco, California 94103 
(415) S2t-mi 



March 13, 2001 



MEMO TO: Theresa 6 erata, 

. Office of the Distrid Attorney 

FROM: Maureen DeBoer, Program Director 



RE 



Quality of Life Program Services Report 

Since August 1, 2000, the Quality! of Life Program has assisted over 170 participants 
died for infraction cases in San P ■andsco. Those who cb ose this "fine alternative" 
option received case management, placement in commutity organizations and court 
advocacy. As projected, we serv :d nearly 50 high-need clients and over 120 other 
participated in commurdty-imprevement programs. 



Case Management Clients are 
case management. During intak£. 
needs" such as substance abuse 
or any combination thereof . If a 
placement in a community-base^ 
Clients were 'directed to English 
readiness programs and life skills 
free clothes or bus tokens. After 
regular basis. For the service 
placed in a personal service 



escorted from court to 
i, clients engaged in 
ssues, mental health, 
tiient presented with 
program designed to 
is a Second Language 
classes. Clients also r 
placement, clients con 
" beginning August 
program. 



peiod 
'neeojs 



Community Outreach and Projects: Pretrial Diversion 
and every site where clients may be placed for treatmer 
65% of clients who fall outside of the high-need categoi 
development allowed them to pprtidpate in projects 
impact that included park deaniip, graffiti removal 
of non-profit organizations. Clipts also worked at a 1c 
bag of groceries. Many of our community projects are 
6taff to ensure quality and accountability , 



fgin immediate assessment for 
essment for "personal service 
imelessness, educational needs 
iy of those PSN issues, a 
iddressthat need was made. 
5ses, detox service, treatment 
Lved a transport ii necessary 
iue to be monitored on a 
), 35% of partidpants are 



taff has personally visited each 
t or services. For the remaining 
■, community service project 
t provided a visible community 
support for our large network 
" food bank in exchange for a 
irdinated and supervised by 



Court Liaisoru Clients are walked from the Hall of Justice directly to our office in order 
to begin immediate services.- Commissioner Colbert, Commissioner Lyons and the 
DA's office all receive written notification on the statusiof the dient: if they successfully 
completed the assigned program, if they required additional time or if they failed to 
comply. 



Please contad Will Leong or m ; '•self at (415) 626-4995 if* you have any questions . 



71 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 6 - File 00-1895 

Note This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its 
meeting of December 20, 2000. 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor 

Committee at its meeting of November 29, 2000 to allow 
the Department of the Environment to submit a revised 
proposal for expenditure of reserved funds. 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Department of Environment 

Hearing to request release of $146,244 in reserved Hetch 
Hetchy funds, to be used by the Department of 
Environment to enter into a professional services 
contract. 

$146,244 

Hetch Hetchy operating funds identified as savings and 
reserved by the Board of Supervisors in the Fiscal Year 
2000-2001 Hetch Hetchy budget. 

In 1999, Hetch Hetchy redistributed the duties and 
responsibilities of its Bureau of Energy Conservation, an 
in-house bureau responsible for projects to increase 
energy efficiency in City facilities, to other bureaus within 
Hetch Hetchy and to the Department of Environment. 
While Hetch Hetchy continues to oversee energy 
conservation programs for existing City facilities, the 
responsibility for energy efficiency for new City 
construction projects has been shifted to the Department 
of the Environment. The Resource Efficiency Building 
(FEB) Ordinance that was approved by the Board of 
Supervisors in May of 1999 (File No. 99-0443) requires 
the Department of Environment to develop guidelines for 
the design and construction of new City facilities which 
are to be energy efficient. Prior to Hetch Hetchy's 
reorganization, the Hetch Hetchy Bureau of Energy 
Conservation had been providing significant support 
towards implementing the REB ordinance. 

During the Finance and Labor Committee's annual 
budget review in June of 2000, the Committee placed 
$146,244 of the proposed FY 2000-2001 Hetch Hetchy 
budget on reserve which was also approved by the full 
Board of Supervisors. The purpose of the reserve was to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
72 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

fund the Department of Environment's estimated 
expenditure of $146,244 to hire two Senior Energy 
Specialists. 

Since that time, the Department of Environment has 
revised its plans, and now proposes to enter into a 
contract for consulting services to support various REB 
projects. The Department of Environment's revised 
proposal is explained in Attachment I to this report, 
provided by the Department. 

Budget: Attachment II, provided by the Department, contains a 

budget for the proposed release of $146,244 in reserved 
funds. 

Comments: 1. Attachment I to this report is a memorandum from 

Ms. Francesca Vietor of the Department of Environment. 
In Attachment I, Ms. Vietor lists ten "activities" which the 
department would undertake, through the use of an 
expert consultant, with the currently reserved $146,244 
in funds. Ms Vietor goes on to write in Attachment I: 

The Department of the Environment is responsible 
for implementing the Resource Efficiency Building 
Ordinance (REB). ...services will be rendered for 
three high priority design projects: 

- Renovation of Laguna Honda Hospital 

- Administration building at 525 Golden Gate 

- Renovation of the California Academy of Sciences 

With regard to the overall success of the REB, Ms. Vietor 
further states: 

In order to supplement this fledgling program, we 
are in discussions with Hetch Hetchy to supplement 
REB efforts with two existing as-needed engineering 
services contracts. We have access to Hetch Hetchy 
contracts; however, it is unclear how much 
assistance will be provided. As assistance is made 
available, the contractors will then work on one or 
more of the following REB pilot projects: 

- New Mission Park and Recreation Center 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

73 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

- Replacement of the Visitation Valley Recreation 
Center 

- New Muni maintenance station at Islais Creek 

- New parking garage at Golden Gate Park 
Concourse 

- New West End Pavilion in Golden Gate Park 

Even with the support of Hetch Hetchy and the 
release from reserve, and because of the scope and 
magnitude of the pilots, we will probably need 
additional resources to be successful with the REB 
program. 

2. Attachment II to this report, provided by the 
Department, is a "task-based budget" for the subject 
$146,244 in reserved funds, and a fee structure for the 
proposed expert consultant. 

3. Attachment III to this report, provided by the 
Department, is a memorandum by Ms. Vietor describing 
the consultant selection process undertaken by the 
Department. Brown Vance and Associates was selected 
as the consultant for this project as described in 
Attachment III. 

4. Attachment IV to this report, provided by the 
Department, is a memorandum by Ms.Vietor, in which 
Ms. Vietor writes "None of the currently reserved $146,244 
that we are requesting be released have been expended or 
encumbered for the proposed project." 

5. As noted above, the subject reserved funds were 
originally placed on reserve by the Board of Supervisors to 
allow Department of Environment to hire two Senior 
Energy Specialists. As the Department of Environment is 
now requesting that the subject reserved funds be used to 
enter into a professional services contract instead, the 
Budget Analyst considers the proposed release of reserved 
funds to be a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 

Recommendation: Approval of the requested release of reserved funds is a 

policy matter for the Board of Supervisors, in accordance 
with Comment No. 5. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

74 




Page 1 ot 2 



SF Environment 




WILLIE L BROWN, JR. 
Mayor 

FRANCESCA VICTOR 
Director 



April 3, 2001 

To: Harvey Rose 



From: 



Subject: 



Franc 
Direc 



sea Vietor 
or 



Release from Reserve, Document 1 



The Department of the Environment is responsible for implementing the Resource Efficient Building 
Ordinance (REB). Fpr the FY00-01 Budget $146,244 were placed on reserve at the Department of the 
Environment to support the energy portion of the REB program. With these funds we plan to use an 
expert consultant to accomplish the tasks identified below. 

Work Scope 

The $146,244 will be used over the contract period to implement the following REB activities: 
1. Recommend and develop the approach for energy-efficient design in REB pilot projects. 



2. Review, analyze, 
benefit-cost analy 



-may include 



md make recommendations for specific energy-saving opportunities 
sis and building modeling for pilots. 

3. Perform due-diligfence reviews of other firms' energy-efficiency design recommendations, benefit-cost 
analysis, and building modeling 

4. Prepare and'or re\ iew cornmissioning plans. 

5 . Perform measurer lent and verification of energy-efficient equipment; including client satisfaction with 
the equipment and savings realized. 

6. Review and assess equipment training proposed by contractors; assess maintenance staff satisfaction 
with equipment, and provide supplemental technical support/training as needed. 

7. Develop energy- efficiency design guidelines that are applicable to a wide range of CCSF facility types 
(for inclusion in REB tool kit) — including both prescriptive and performance. 

8. Develop RFP and specifications language for energy-efficiency measures (for inclusion in REB tool kit) 

9. Work with SF Environment staff to develop amendments to CCSF's REB ordinance to strengthen its 
energy-efficiency requirements. 

10. Develop and conduct workshops for CCSF engineers, architects, building inspectors, and other staff on 
resource efficient building principles. 



Dcpdi luieiii <>i the Environment, City ami County or San Francisco 

Telephono: (415) 554-6390 * Fax: (415) 554-6393* 11 Grove Street San Francisco, California 94102 

Email: Environnient@ci.sf.ca.us •www.srenvironmentcom" 



75 



April 5,2001 
Page 2 

These services will b 3 rendered for three high priority design projects: 



♦ Renovation of La. 

♦ Adntihistratidn 

♦ Renovation o 



.guna Honda Hospital 
building at 525 Golden Gate 
"the California Academy of Sciences. 



S146 



Please note that 
program and the 
program, we are in 
needed engineering 



We have access to lb 
provided. As assistalnc 
REB pilot projects 



New Mission 
Replacement 
New Muni 
New parking 
New West 



Attachment I 
Page 2 of 2 



244 is a small piece of what is necessary for the implementation of the REB 
successful development of the pilot projects. In order to supplement this fledgling 
discussions with Hetch Hetchy to supplement REB efforts wiih two existing as- 
ssrvices contracts. 



e Hetch Hetchy contracts; however, it is unclear how much, assistance will be 
;e is made available, the contractors will work on one or more of the following 



Park and Recreation Center 
af the Visitaciou Valley Recreation Center 
miiintenance station atlslais Creek 
parage at Golden Gate Park Concourse 
Pavilion in Golden Gate Park 



End 



Even with the 
magnitude of the pi] 
program. 



suppdrt of Hetch Hetchy and the release from reserve, and because of the scope and 
ots, we will probably need additional resources to be successful with the REB 



Consultant Budget of $146.244 



The planned budget jbr this contract was 566,244. The other 580,000 was to be work ordered to DPW 
for energy analysis tnd modeling work to be performed by the contracted engineering firms for Cal 
Academy and Laguni Honda Hospital. However, to provide greater accountability for the analysis and 
modeling process, and receive the best possible work product, we have increased the budget for this 
contract to 5146,244. 



A detailed breakdown 
perform the building 
original estimate. 



of the work is on. the attached spreadsheet. Note: assuming this contractor will 
modeling (Task 2) means that the percentage for each task has changed from the 



Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please call Cal Broomhead, 934-4802. 



76 




SF Environment 



April 3. 200(1 
To: 
From: 
Subject 



Attachm en 
tage 1 




H jrvey Rose 

Fiancesca Vletor 

Release from Reserve - Budget, Document #2 



The following are the hourly rates tor the Contractor's personnel: 

Principal 

Vlce-Preaidbnt - " 
Senior Associate II - 
Senior Associate I 
Associate II 
Associate 



Engineer/Planner II 
Engineer/Pljanner I 
Edlting/c 
Administrative Support 



S165 
S140 
S120 
S105 
$90 
$80 
$75 
$65 
$60 
$50 



The followir g are the tasks and per task the estimated hours, average hourly rate, and total budget: 



Task 



1 . Recommend and develop the approach for energy- 

WIUJEl. BROWN, JR., ^a- . . , J. , _,,-_, „ . . . 

^ or ' efficient design in REB pilot projects. 

francesca vieto". ^" R ev i ew > analyze, and make recommendations for 
Director specific ent rgy-saving opportunities — may include 

benefit-cost analysis and building modeling for pilots. 

3. Perform iiue-dillgence reviews of other firms' energy- 



Average Hourly 
Hours Rate Total Budget 



efficiency d 
analysis, ar 



4. Prepare 

5. Perform 



ssign recommendations, benefit-cost 
d building modeling. 



and/or review commissioning plans, 
ineasurement and verification of energy- 



efficient equipment; including client satisfaction with the 
equipment and savings realized. 



111 



1227 



30 



41 



33 



$90.23 



$86.91 



$104.00 



$79.39 



$77.12 



$10,015 



$106,644 



$3,120 



$3,255 



$2,545 



■it &l iIir tnviiuHinent, Cily und <_ounly or bun t-iunci-^co 
1 1 Grove Street. Son Fioncisco, California 94.102 • Telephone (At 5) 554-6390 » Fax: (41 5| 554 6393 
Emoil: environ nenl@ci.'jf.tu.oi » www.sfenvironrnent.com ft ■;•»"» Bc7jt«33»"PW:C6'^xrsr»te3tsCcnUflt 



77 



Attachment II 
Fage Z ot Z 



6. Review and assess equipment training proposed by 
contractors: assess maintenance staff satisfaction with 
equipmentjand provide supplemental technical 
support/training as needed. 

7. Develop energy-efficiency design guidelines that are 
applicable to a wide range of CCSF facility types (for 
inclusion in REB tool kit) — including both prescriptive 
and performance.' 

8. Develop RFP and specifications language for energy- 
efficiency measures (for inclusion in REB too! kit). 

9. Work- wit". SF Environment staff to develop 
amendments to CCSFs REB ordinance to strengthen 
fts energy-efficiency requirements. 

10. Develop and conduct workshops for CCSF 
engineers, architects, building inspectors, and other 
staff on respurce efficient building principles. 

TOTAL 



11 



40 



43 



$125.91 

; 
5106.25 

$85.23 



$1,385 

$4,250 
$3,665 



13 $128.08 $1,665 

94 S10S.19 $9,700 

$146,244 



78 




Sir Environment 



April 3, 2001 

To: Harvey Rose 

From : Franc esc a Vietor 

Direci or 

Subject: Release from-Reserve, Document 3 




WILLIE L BROWN, JR. 
Mayor 

FRANCE5CA VIETOR 
Director 






Consultant Selection 



We were instructed 
energy services 



There were two 
requested a waiver 
was not invited to the 



that before dollars could be released from reserve, we would need to secure an 
mtrjact. An RFP was issued on January 29, 2001 in order to secure said contract 



bidders for this contract: Brown Vence Associates and ATM Associates. AIM 
MBE/WBE goals but HRC denied the request, disqualifying their proposal. AIM 
interview stage. Contact Bayard Fong, HRC at 83 1-2082. 



for 



The selection panel interviewed only Brown Vence Associates. Brown Vence passed the interview with 
scores of 40, 37 and 37 - better than the minimum of 35 points out of 55 points posiible. Scoring was 
determined based ujon proposed project plan, experience, approach, professional qualifications and 
similar project experience. Because there was no specified deliverable, a dollar bid was not an 
appropriate evaluatio i criterion. Brown Vence was selected. 



Department of Urn Environment, City and County or San Francisco 

Telephone: (415) 554-639U • Fax: (415) 554-6393» J 1 Grove Street, San Francisco, California 94102 

Email: Environmentg-ci.sf.ca.us • www.sfcnvironment.corn 



79 



n. u uca. ci.tLU'ii 




SF Environment 



March 27, 2001 

To: Harvey Rose 




WILLIE L BROWN, JR. 
Mayor 

FRANCESCA VIETOR 
Director 



From: 



Subject: 



Francesca Vietor 
Director 



Release from Reserve, Document 4 



The Department of the Environment is responsible for implementing the Resource iEfficient Building 
Ordinance (REB). For the FY00-01 Budget 5146,244 were placed on reserve at the Department of the 
Environment to support the energy portion of the REB program. We are proposing to expend these 
funds on a contract with an expert consultant. 

None of the currently reserved 5146,244 that we are requesting be released have been expended or 
encumbered for the proposed proj ect. 

Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please call Cal Broomheadj 934-4802. 



IA4fc«UMuHL ul iln: l-iiviiuniiKjiii, city I t.'junly oi bdll I-iuiiujCU 

Telephone: (415) 554-6390 * Fax: (415) S54-6393» 11 Grave Sheet, San Francisco, Califorria 94102 
BriHfl: EmtanmMtiQdJ&GBUUf •vwjw.sfenvironmcntcom 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 7 - File 01-0472 



Departments: 



Item: 



Location: 



Department of Administrative 

Division (RED) 
Superior Court 



Services, Real Estate 



Resolution authorizing exercise of an option regarding an 
extension of an existing lease at 575 Polk Street, on behalf 
of the Superior Court. 

The proposed lease amendment would extend the City's 
lease for the rental of the entire ground floor and 
mezzanine of 575 Polk Street. 



Purpose 
of Lease: 



Lessor: 
Lessee: 



To extend for 10 years the rental of space that houses three 
Superior Court courtrooms and office space for 10 
employees. 

The Mattison Family Trust 

City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through 
the Department of Administrative Services, Division of 
Real Estate. 



No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Cost Per Month: 



Annual Cost: 

Annual 

Rent Increases: 



8,870 square feet at a monthly rental rate of $16,500 ($1.86 
per square foot per month) in Year One of the subject lease. 

$198,000 in Year One of the proposed lease. 



Approximately $0.09 per square foot per month, or an 
increase of 5 percent for Year Two of the proposed lease, 
with increases in subsequent years at 5 percent over the 
rate of the year immediately preceding as shown in the 
table in Comment No. 1. 



Annual Cost Over 
Current Rent Paid: 



During FY 2000-2001, the rental rate for the space has 
been $15,513 per month (approximately $1.75 per square 
foot per month), or $186,156 for the year. The proposed 
lease represents an $11,844 annual increase, or 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

81 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

approximately 6.4% percent, in Year One over the existing 
lease. 

Utilities and: 

Janitorial Services: Mr. Neal Taniguchi of the Superior Court advises 

that in FY 1999-2000 the following expenses were 

paid for the subject property: 

FY 1999-2000 Actual Costs 
Gas 

(paid from the General Fund) $2,068 
Water 

(paid from the General Fund) 957 

Electricity 

(paid from the General Fund) 2.273 

Subtotal $5,298 

Janitorial Services 
(paid from State Trial Courts 
Trust Fund) $27,207 

Garbage Collection 
(paid from State Trial Courts 
Trust Fund) 2,115 

Other Maintenance (Small 
Repairs-paid from State Trial 
Courts Trust Fund) 4,051 

Subtotal S33,373 

TOTAL £38.671 

Mr. Taniguchi advises that the Gas, Water, and 
Electricity are paid from the General Fund because 
the State Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 required 
that certain maintenance expenses (including Gas, 
Water and Electricity) remain the obligation of the 
Counties. (The Courts became an arm of the State 
through Trial Court Funding Act of 1997.) He 
notes, though, that the State Rules of Court allow 
for Janitorial Services, Garbage Collection and 
Other Maintenance to be paid for from the State 
Trial Court Trust Fund. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

82 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Mr. Taniguchi estimates the following costs for FY 
2000-2001 based on billings received so far this 
year: 

FY 2000-2001 Estimated Costs 
Gas 

(paid from the General Fund) $5, 128 
Water 

(paid from the General Fund) 1,027 

Subtotal $6,155 

Janitorial Services 
(paid from State Trial Courts 
Trust Fund) $31,713 

Garbage Collection 
(paid from State Trial Courts 
Trust Fund) 3.000 

Subtotal $34,713 



TOTAL 



$40.868 



Term of Lease: 



Mr. Taniguchi notes that an estimate could not be 
provided for Electricity as no billings have been 
received so far this year. He further notes that Other 
Maintenance (small repairs) totaled $1,947 through 
the end of January and that this amount varies from 
year to year depending upon the repairs required. 

Ten years beginning July 1, 2001 and ending June 30, 
2011. 



Right of Renewal: 



The Lessee (City) has no right to renew the lease beyond 
the proposed 10-year extension. 



Source of Rental 
Funds: 



For FY 2001-2002 (Year One of the proposed lease 
amendment) and for subsequent years, funding would come 
from the Courthouse Construction Fund. 1 Mr. Taniguchi 



1 Section 10.100-353(b) of the Administrative Code established the Trial Courts Courthouse 
Construction Fund for the purpose of assisting the City and County with the "acquisition, 
rehabilitation, construction and financing of courtrooms or of a courtroom building or buildings 
containing the facilities necessary or incidental to the operation of the justice system." Section 
10.100-353(c) specifies that "all funds shall be expended as jointly determined by the Courthouse 
Construction Fund Committee (consisting of the Presiding Judges of the Superior and Municipal 
Court), with the approval of the Board of Supervisors. The fund shall be maintained by the 
Controller's Office which shall record all receipts and expenditures." 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
83 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

advises that Section 10.100-353 of the Administrative Code 
also allows the lease payments to be made from the 
Courthouse Construction Fund. He further notes that 
payments for the existing 10-year lease, which expires June 
30, 2001, were made from the Courthouse Construction 
Fund. Mr. Robert Kerrigan of Superior Court advises that 
the Courthouse Construction Fund had an unappropriated 
balance of $5,952,565 as of April 5, 2001. He further 
advises that in FY 1999-2000, the Fund generated 
$4,864,719 in combined revenues from penalty assessments 
in criminal cases, surcharges on parking citations and 
_ surcharges on Superior and Municipal Court first filing 
fees. The Fund received $303,456 in interest on such 
revenue resulting in total revenues of $5,168,175. Mr. 
Taniguchi notes that the expenditures paid from the Fund, 
including payments for this proposed 575 Polk Street lease 
and for the annual debt service on the Civic Center 
Courthouse, total approximately $4.5 million, resulting in 
estimated annual revenues in excess of annual 
expenditures by more than $600,000. 

Comments: 1. According to the proposed lease, the rent payments owed 

by the City would be as follows: 









Approximate 










Rent Per 




Lease 


Annual 


Monthly 


Square Foot / 


Percent 


Year 


Base Rent 


Base Rent 


Month 


Increase 


1 


$198,000 


$16,500 


$1.86 


6.4% 


2 


207,900 


17,325 


1.95 


5% 


3 


218,292 


18,191 


2.05 


5% 


4 


229,212 


19,101 


2.15 


5% 


5 


240,672 


20,056 


2.26 


5% 


6 


252,708 


21,059 


2.37 


5% 


7 


265,344 


22,112 


2.49 


5% 



8 278,604 23,217 2.62 5% 

9 292,536 24,378 2.75 5% 

10 307,164 25,597 2.89 5% 



2. The original lease, which began April 1, 1991 and 
ends June 30, 2001, stipulates that the City has the 
option to extend the lease for two five-year periods. It 
further stipulates that the monthly rent for each 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

84 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

such extended term shall be set at 90% of the fair 
market value (at the start of such extended term) for 
comparable space. Mr. Steve Legnitto of the RED 
notes that through the proposed lease amendment 
the City would exercise both options (two options to 
extend for five years each) and thus extend the lease 
for 10 years. Mr. Legnitto explains that the Lessor 
presented the City with proposed rental rate 
increases based on both a five-year and a 10-year 
extension. Mr. Legnitto advises that RED 
determined that the 10-year extension was better for 
the City because it provides a rental rate that is less 
_ than the 90% of fair market value required by the 
original lease. A comparison of the five-year and 10- 
year proposals follows: 

(Monthly base rent data provided by RED. Calculations by Budget Analyst's 
Office.) 







Proposed Five-Year 


Extension 






Proposed Ten-Year Extension 










App] 


roximate 








Approximate 






Annual 


Monthly 


Rent Per Square 


Percent 


Annual 


Monthly 


Rent Per Square 


Percent 


fear 


Base Rent 


Base Rent 


Foo 


t/Month 


Increase 


Base Rent 


Base Rent 


Foot/Month 


Increase 


1 


$240,000 


$20,000 




$2.25 


28.9% 1 


$198,000 


$16,500 


$1.86 


6.4%' 


2 


252,000 


$21,000 




2.37 


5% 


207,900 


17,325 


1.95 


5°/o 


3 


264,600 


22,050 




2.49 


5% 


218,292 


18,191 


2.05 


5% 


4 


277,836 


23,153 




2.61 


5% 


229,212 


19,101 


2.15 


5% 


5 


291,720 


24,310 




2.74 


5% 


240,672 


20,056 


2.26 


5% 


6 


306,3122 


25,5262 




2.882 


5% 


252,708 


21,059 


2.37 


5% 


7 


321, 624 2 


26,8022 




3.02 2 


5% 


265,344 


22,112 


2.49 


5% 


8 


337.704 2 


28,1422 




3.172 


' 5% 


278,604 


23,217 


2.62 


5% 


9 


354,588 2 


29,549 2 




3.33 2 


5% 


292,536 


24,378 


2.75 


5% 


10 


372.3242 


31,0272 




3.50 2 


5% 


307.164 


25.597 


2.89 


5% 


'otal 


$3,018,708 










$2,490,432 








erage 


$301,871 


$25,156 




2.84 




$249,043 


$20,754 


2.34 





1 Over current lease rate of approximately $1.75 per 
square foot per month for FY 2000-2001 

2 Based on estimate by RED for comparative purposes. 



Mr. Legnitto advises that the RED believes that a 
10-year extension will provide the City with a lease 
rate that is less than 90% of fair market value for the 
first five years of the extension as well as for the 
entire 10-year term. Mr. Legnitto advises that the 
proposed 10-year extension would result in an 
average rental rate of $2.34 per square foot per 
month which is less than the monthly rental rate of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

85 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

$2.84 per square foot, which Mr. Legnitto advises 
would be the fair market value of the proposed lease 
option over the ten-year period. (See Attachment.) To 
support this conclusion, he advises that when the 
lease negotiations for the subject property began in 
the fourth quarter of 2000, the average Civic Center 
leasing rate for "Class B" (less than prime) office 
space was approximately $43 per square foot per 
year ($3.58 per square foot per month). He notes that 
RED considers the subject property a "special use" 
property (because the City is an existing tenant and 
because the space is used for courtrooms) and 
estimates that the market value was approximately 
$29.90 per square foot per year ($2.49 per square foot 
per month) at the time the negotiations began. He 
further notes that it was the RED's opinion that the 
10-year proposed extension reflected a discount over 
market rates with a starting rate of $22.32 per 
square foot per year ($1.86 per square foot per 
month) and an ending rate of $34.63 per square foot 
per year ($2.89 per square foot per month). Mr. 
Legnitto advises that the RED chose the 10-year 
proposal for three reasons: (1) that the courts would 
likely need the space for an additional ten years (2) 
to maximize the return on $710,715 in improvements 
to the space that were completed by the City in 1990, 
and (3) to minimize the risk of an escalating rental 
market. 

3. Negotiations regarding the subject lease began in 
the fourth quarter of 2000. Mr. Legnitto notes that 
RED believed at that time that the five-year proposal 
represented the fair market value of the subject 
property and the 10-year proposal represented a 
price less than 90% of the fair market value. He 
advises that the RED still believes this to be true 
despite the fact that commercial vacancies have 
increased in recent months in some San Francisco 
neighborhoods. As noted above, Mr. Legnitto advises 
that the proposed 10-year extension would result in 
an average rental rate of $2.34 that is 82.4 percent of 
his estimate of $2.84 per square foot per month, 
which he advises represents fair market value over 
the 10-year period. The Attachment, provided by Mr. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

86 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Legnitto, provides additional information pertaining 
to market value. 

4. Mr. Gordon Park-Li of the Superior Court advises 
that the subject property includes three courtrooms, 
one jury deliberation room and two offices on the 
ground floor totaling 7,979 square feet. He advises 
that the 891 square foot mezzanine space is used for 
storage for a total of 8,870 square feet. 

5. Mr. Taniguchi advises that the following 
additional expenses are currently paid by the City 
and would continue to be paid under the proposed 
lease: 

FY 1999-2000 Actual Cost 
50% of the real Property Taxes 
(paid from Courthouse 

Construction Fund) $15,557 

Portion of Fire and Loss of Rent Insurance 

(paid from Courthouse 

Construction Fund) 735 

TOTAL $16,292 

6. The proposed lease amendment provides that between 
March 1, 2006 and June 30, 2006, the Lessor will, at the 
Lessor's expense, repaint all of the interior walls of the 
subject property. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

87 



'City and County of San Francisco 




Real Estate Division 

Administrative Services Department , 



ATTACHMENT 
Page 1 of 1 






MEMORANDUM 



DATE: April 4, 2001 

TO: Budget Analyst 



FROM: Steve Legnitto 

Principal Real PropertyDfTicer 



SUBJECT: 575 Polk Street 



Although we have seen a recent decline in the commercial leasing market, this has been primarily in 
the South of Market, Mid-Market, and Potrero Hill areas of the city. The Civic Center area has 
remained stable with no significant increase in vacancy. 

In regard to this specific lease, we are continuing a lease where the city is currently a tenant. 
We consider this lease to fall under a "special use" category since the space is primarily being used 
as courtrooms. Additionally, the city made tenant improvements to the premises prior to its 
occupancy that would not make economic sense to abandon at this time. 

We began negotiations for extension of this lease in the 4 quarter of last year and recently concluded 
them . At the time we began our negotiations, we believed that the proposed five year deal was at 
market rate and that the proposed ten year deal was less than 90% of the leasing market value. 
In our opinion, this is still the case since the market for this "special use" Civic Center property 
has not declined from our original assessment as of the writing of this report. 



(41S) 554-9150 
FAX: (415) 552-9216 



Offica of tha Director of Proparty 
25 Van Nesi Avenue, Surta 400 

88 



San Francisco, CA 94 



Memo to Finance Committee 

April 11, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 8 -File 01-0473 
Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 

Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Airport 

Department of Real Estate (DRE) 

Resolution authorizing the acquisition of 5 noise 
easements for properties located in the City of San Bruno. 

$2,100,000, with an anticipated 80 percent 
reimbursement from the City of San Bruno of (see 
Comment No. 3) 

Airport Capital Projects Commercial Paper Fund (see 
Comment No. 4) 

According to Ms. Sally Osaki of the Airport, California 
law prohibits the operation of an airport if that airport 
has an average noise impact of greater that 65 decibels on 
properties that have "incompatible land uses" with regard 
to this noise, unless a waiver is obtained by that airport 
from the California Department of Transportation. 
"Incompatible land uses" include residences, schools, 
hospitals, convalescent homes, and churches, inside which 
the noise from airport operations averages above 65 
decibels. San Francisco International Airport is currently 
not in full compliance with this regulation, and has 
operated under a waiver provided by the California 
Department of Transportation since 1982. In its current 
non-compliant status, the